Clarisse Thorn

I write and speak about subcultures, sexuality, and new media.

This is a thread that exists solely to continue the comments on my now-classic post Manliness and Feminism: The Followup, because that post has 1,393 comments (many of them long and dense) and is starting to crash folks’ browsers.

560 responses to “Manliness and Feminism 2: Judgment Day”

Need to go through the last comments in the first part, but, yeah, impressive. I’ve seen a fair share of things on blogs, but I never got a time out on a comment page ;) Congratulations. Let’s keep things up (and civilised ;))

Hugh, good post. Thanks for bringing up Norah Vincent again. I think her experience can be quite illuminating. I reckon it would be a good thing to experience walking in the other role’s shoes – I suppose with respect to the initiation/creep bit, going to a gay bar (without a woman) could be an interesting experience for most… it certainly was for me.

Here’s a less comprehensive attempt to try out being a man that I once saw on the interwebs.

I love you guys. This thread has been such a fascinating experience. So many comments have been so comprehensive and layered, I’m not surprised the previous thread is getting unloadable.

Hugh, no fair. I was going to write a followup and now it just seems silly. :grin: I can’t work under these conditions!

@Danny — Well okay feminists don’t deny them as much as bend reality until it looks like women are actually the victims.

Well, in fairness, women ARE usually actually the victims. It’s not bending reality so much as a case of “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

I had a conversation with Daran recently over at ManBoobz that reminded me how much of this problem is just both sides refusing to communicate until the other side accepts their perspective. It’s weird how hard it is to communicate past the divide.

@Scootah — I’ve since passed the link on a bit and the consistent response from cis heterosexual guys has been consistently positive and somewhat amazed that I found a feminist writing about male sexuality and it wasn’t offensively obnoxious.

Well, this is a relief. Thank you. Intellectually I know that people who react positively are less likely to comment, but it’s still exhausting to go through hundreds of negative and nitpicky discussions about it.

Clarisse, how about “player”? That’s often, if not always, used admiringly. And even when people use it derogatorily, there is still a certain admiration implicit in the usage. “Don’t date him, he’s such a player” isn’t saying he’s an awful person so avoid him, it’s saying he’s very successful romantically and you won’t be his #1.

I recall a friend of mine telling me that his brother would go to bars and directly ask women if they wanted to have sex with him. He would always respect “no” or similar signals. He never asked twice or badgered. He just moved on to the next woman he was attracted to.

Apparently he got slapped a fair number of times. And my guess is that plenty of people probably thought he was a “creep”.

But honestly, I don’t think there is anything ethically wrong with doing things that way. I can see why people might react badly (it’s out-of-the-norm behavior, for one, and social conditioning tends to make people see direct sexual propositions to women as disrespectful and cheapening). But I don’t think that has any bearing on the ethics of his actions.

And I think some feminists might even agree with me: his actions treated women as full-fledged human beings that might or might not want to have sex with him, he only did this in bar settings (an acceptable setting for seeking people to sleep with), he was direct instead of “manipulative” (like Nice Guy(tm)), and he respected their answer the first time, no questions asked.

But the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. He got slapped.

Clearly this is an extreme example. But I think it’s illustrative of the incongruity between feminist ethics and what most people will view as creepy.

I really like what Hugh wrote in his article on FC, above:

Lesbian journalist Norah Vincent dressed up and lived as a man for 6 months for her book Self-Made Man. She tried dating, and got a horrible shock. She discovered that the heterosexual male initiator role is much harder than she ever imagined as a woman:

We don’t have to do the part where you cross the room and you go up to a stranger that you’ve never met in the middle of a room full of people and say the first words. And those first words are so hard to say without sounding like a cheeseball or sounding like a jerk<

Cheeseball, jerk, or perhaps… creep?

I think a big part of the problem for me, at least, is that there is no clear definition of actions that are acceptable. i.e. “If you do this, and behave like this, in this context, then you are being ethical. And if someone reacts badly to it, it’s not your fault.”

The “not your fault” part is critical. Because the reality of the world is such that if I approach women, even in totally ethical ways, some of them are still going to get uncomfortable. And I need someone with credentials (e.g. a woman, knowledgeable about gender issues) to tell me that as long as I am behaving ethically I am not at fault for that.

But feminism spends a lot of time talking about how women get to “define their own experiences”. And while I agree that everyone gets to define their own experiences to some extent, there is a limit. Sometimes there is an objective truth, and sometimes if someone gets uncomfortable due to something I’ve done, it’s not actually my fault. (And sometimes it is my fault, too, of course).

And I get the strong impression that this is something that mainstream feminism doesn’t want to touch even with a ten-foot pole. And I really wonder if that’s most of why no acceptable behavior is defined: mainstream feminism is afraid of invalidating any woman’s experience, even if that experience might be problematic, so any behavior by a man is reserved as potentially inappropriate.

I’m cross-posting this from a comment I made on FC, because I think this is important, and it’s also a pet-peeve of mine:

Re: “sexual needs”

I think the disagreement over this actually comes down to imprecision in language. If I may provide a brief analysis of how the word “need” is typically used:

To be precisely and unambiguously used, the word “need” requires qualification. For example:
“I need water to avoid death”
“I need those spreadsheets to finish my work”

Generally those qualifiers are implicit, and not stated:
“I need water”
“I need those spreadsheets”

In most cases the implicit meaning is clear. But sometimes there are misunderstandings:

“What, you think you’ll die if you don’t get those spreadsheets? You don’t really need those spreadsheets.”

I suspect that’s basically what’s going on here. When people say “sexual need” they’re generally not referring to dying. And I suspect the implicit qualifier for “sexual need” isn’t even always the same, and actually depends on context.

But I would suggest that the most typical implicit qualifier for “sexual need” is “I need X to feel fully satisfied and fulfilled in a sexual relationship”. And I would hope that such a statement wouldn’t be controversial even in feminist circles, insofar as X is not unethical.

But I would suggest that the most typical implicit qualifier for “sexual need” is “I need X to feel fully satisfied and fulfilled in a sexual relationship”. And I would hope that such a statement wouldn’t be controversial even in feminist circles, insofar as X is not unethical.

Unless those are radical feminists against PIV sex (aka vaginal intercourse, very often shortened to intercourse even if not the only intercourse possible).

I’ve seen posts against vaginal sex that say that even when consented enthusiastically, the balance of responsability incurred for the act is too bad for women to be anything ethical. Pregnancy, and ITS being supposedly more transmissible to women than men (if its true the margin must not be that much).

Never mind that a guy’s protection against 18+ years of payments stops right there, unless he dies or manages to disappear from even the police’s radar.

I’ve seen posts against vaginal sex that say that even when consented enthusiastically, the balance of responsability incurred for the act is too bad for women to be anything ethical.

I take great satisfaction and amusement whenever I see chauvinism rear its head in feminist contexts. The irony is just awesome. And as I’ve become more aware of it, it seems like it pops up a lot.

I recall reading a feminist post quite a while ago that compared becoming aware of sexism to breaking out of the Matrix. It strikes me that becoming aware of chauvinism within feminism is kind of similar. :-P

“But honestly, I don’t think there is anything ethically wrong with doing things that way.”

I think “ethically wrong” is too big a term for most cases of inappropriate behaviour, also “creepy” behaviour. And being explicit doesn’t necessarily solve the problem – as Scootah mentioned in his post just before the switch to this thread – and if you go back to the Antioch research I posted in the first part, you’ll see that some women felt sexually harassed by explicit questions under a policy they likely helped to institute themselves. Context is key. And not even that – I’m just home from a 5 hour flight across Europe, andI sat next to what I think was an air hostess on her way home. She read interesting stuff, and I’m sure I could have forced a conversation, but I constantly had the feeling, whatever I’d have said would have come across as creepy. Maybe that was because the first thing I saw of her were her nice legs and the fact that wore a pretty short skirt, but I never said anything beyond what was necessary to coordinate two people sitting next to each other in the same row. Then in the subway, similar setup, a woman sits down next to me, she also has nice legs and a short skirt, but it feels completely natural to start talking to her. We had a great chat and she almost missed her stop because of our conversation, so she was kind of into it. If you’d ask me what the difference was, or merely why I felt different about those two situations, I wouldn’t be able to tell you. Maybe it was subtle clues in the women’s body language, but, if so, I can’t point out what exactly it was.

As for Norah Vincent, I think I remember she also said something about “feeling powerless” in the situation, and that she was overwhelmed by the power (and not rarely cruel exercise thereof) women hold in that situation.

“it’s not your fault.”

I think there’s two ways to get close to that. a) empirics and b) evaluating the reference standard. As for a) – if you’ve approached 100 women and 80 of them have reacted favorably to your approach, you haven’t done anything different for the other 20, then I think it is reasonable to assume that what you do is generally ok, but for some reason that may or may not have to do with you, 20% of the women reacted differently. People are different, and if you did nothing outside of the realm of generally acceptable behaviour then I think it’s even fair to assume that it wasn’t about your behaviour, maybe it was about *you* (as in “not their type”) and likely it was about them (as in: had a bad day, waiting for a friend who’s late, etc). As for b) – this goes back to what “ethical” behaviour in this respect consists of, and the fact that *appropriate* behaviour may sometimes be “unethical* and *inappropriate* behaviour may sometimes be completely ethical. My point is – we cannot outsource making our decisions about what we think is ethical and appropriate in a given situation. And although I did that for a long time, and others in this thread apparently did the same thing – that also means that we cannot (emotionally) outsource that decision to feminists. We have to own ourselves and our behaviour.

“mainstream feminism is afraid of invalidating any woman’s experience”

I think that is not true – I think it is true that feminists are usually unwilling to believe the experience of a man when contrasted with the experience of a woman (and not just because of standpoint-epistemological claims of a female epistemic privilege with respect to gender matters), but I think Clarisse can testify to the effect that feminists are certainly willing to invalidate a woman’s experience, if it is considered inappropriate, politcally dangerous, or as acquired bad taste/Stockholm syndrome.

if you’ve approached 100 women and 80 of them have reacted favorably to your approach, you haven’t done anything different for the other 20, then I think it is reasonable to assume that what you do is generally ok, but for some reason that may or may not have to do with you, 20% of the women reacted differently.

Sure, but that requires approaching that many women. And I think I’ve maybe tried approaching… one? Maybe? And I wasn’t at all clear about my intentions.

So for me this is a huge catch-22 situation. Until I try approaching quite a few women, it’s hard for me to know if my actions are appropriate. And until I know if my actions are appropriate, I’m not comfortable approaching women.

On top of that, I’m not really sure how well social norms represent positive behavior, and thus how much I want to base my behavior on social norms.

My point is – we cannot outsource making our decisions about what we think is ethical and appropriate in a given situation. And although I did that for a long time, and others in this thread apparently did the same thing – that also means that we cannot (emotionally) outsource that decision to feminists.

That’s a fair point. I think to some degree I’m still stuck feeling like feminism/feminists have final say on what appropriate/ethical behavior is. At least with regards to this issue. And I’m stuck feeling a great need to make sure that my behavior is 100% beyond reproach. But really, I need to give myself room to define this for myself and make mistakes without feeling like I’ve done something wrong.

Making mistakes is part-and-parcel with being in the initiator role, and I think I’m still having difficulty coming to grips with that.

I think “ethically wrong” is too big a term for most cases of inappropriate behaviour, also “creepy” behaviour.

Perhaps I used too strong of language. I meant it in a weaker sense. To be clear, I also don’t think his behavior was inappropriate. Or at least not all that substantially. For example, (intentionally) laughing at a somber funeral strikes me as significantly more inappropriate.

Having said that, my impression is that feminists often do frame it as an ethical issue. So, dunno.

Clarrise:Well, in fairness, women ARE usually actually the victims. It’s not bending reality so much as a case of “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

The problem is when a sneaky little “only” comes between that “the” and “victims”. That “only” is not spoken but it comes out eventually in how people defend their points.

Example. Its one thing to point out that chivalry harms women because it forces the presumption that they are weak and cannot do anything for themselves. Its quite another to leap from that to declaring that the only reason men take part in chivalry is to satisfy their own egos and expect rewards from women for being nice. According to many feminists chivalry only damages women. That’s what I’m talking about.

For another look at the current talk over the word creep. There are quite a few feminists who refuse to believe that creep can ever be misused against men. As if men don’t have desires (and while I think you used needs instead of desires I find it interesting that a few of them really jumped on that word).

They have become so deluded in their own ideology that outside of the occasion bit of lip service (“patriarchy hurts men TOO”, even notice how its never just patriarchy hurts men, like the damage done to men is just a side effect of the main goal of trying to keep women down) they simply refuse to believe that there are parts of the system that harm men. And yes in some metrics men are actually harmed more than women.

So with all due respect that “fairness” you speaking of only goes so far.

“Clarisse, how about “player”? That’s often, if not always, used admiringly.”

as I said somewhere above – I don’t think “stud” and “slut” denote exactly the same thing, even though I agree that “slut” is generally used more often with respect to women. Player is certainly more used with respect to men, but can easily be applied to a woman, in my opinion. I’m usually using it to denote a tendency to “play” with sexual tension (“when dancing, whispering, you’re such a player”)…

To me, the original difference between the terms used comes from the culturally assigend (potentially based in different biological scarcity) value difference of male and female sexuality – a “stud” (by any other name) is gaining value by bedding women, while the slut is losing value – but the positive connotation of stud would not stem from having sex as such, but from being able to have sex *while overcoming the obstacle of the lower
initial sexual value*. “Player” also implies choice. Beggars can’t be choosers, after all. If there were a woman with generally agreed on lower sexual status – say, she were particularly unattractive – and she would still be successful with men – she’d have *choice* -, I’d say she’d be considered a stud or a player and not a slut.” Her success would be seen as achievement, just as being successful with women is seen as an achievement for most men, while being successful with men is too often still seen as weakness for women.

We keep coming back to this problem. Both you and manboobz rephrase the value difference in his thread about your article. You say –

“The reality is that most women are simply less likely to want to go out on a date than most men, but if a guy is really interested — and demonstrates that he’s really interested — then we may change our minds. Everyone changes their mind sometimes.”

– and he says –

“So, women, the message is clear: Date some losers, or someone is going to get shot.”

Over at the yes means yes blog, I asked Thomas with yet another formulation of the problem for an explanation of how he deals with this in his “performance model”. His short reply amounts to saying “I imagine myself a world in which my theory fits.”

“‘… the problem here is assumed asymmetry of sexual desire, an asymmetry that gives the value to the scarce sexuality and thus power over the abundant sexuality. See, I’m all for what you call performance model, although I’m not sure the terminology is perfect. But here’s the thing – I think your model has a tacit assumption: that male and female sexuality are equally scarce, that mutual desire is at least on average equivalent, and I don’t think that is the case – although I’m not sure it could not be the case, we just don’t know enough about the interrelation of biology and culture with respect to the construction of sexual desire (yet). So, equivalence may be achievable, but I don’t think there is this equivalence at the moment – which, on the other hand, implies “value differences” caused by asymmetric desires at least for the time being. How do you deal with that problem in the performance model?”

I think awareness of the “generalized creep factor” is one way of helping to reduce the tension created by the value difference, by attempting to raise the value of male sexuality.

Cessen,

“Sure, but that requires approaching that many women. And I think I’ve maybe tried approaching… one? Maybe? And I wasn’t at all clear about my intentions.”

I think you won’t get around actually approaching some women if you’d like to eventually find one to be with. Sounds both obvious and insensitive, I’m aware of that, but I honestly can’t see any other way to deal with this thing in a productive way. Of course, debating the matter can be very helpful with respect to clarifying things and getting a better understanding of the general dynamics, but it’s not going to help you get over the fear of the actual approach.

“And I’m stuck feeling a great need to make sure that my behavior is 100% beyond reproach. But really, I need to give myself room to define this for myself and make mistakes without feeling like I’ve done something wrong.”

I’ve just thought of the following – do you have a female friend who’s familiar with the problem, possibly even one who identifies as a feminist? I wonder if it would be easier for you get over the “just do it”-moment if a feminist would tell you that it’s ok to talk to the woman you’d like to talk to? Do you think escalating an interaction would be easier for you, if the cues came from a feminist?

I think that the meaning “stud” as used in this discussion is mostly simply defined as a man who has sex with many women, and as such is value neutral. However the predatory concept of male sexuality colours this with both positive and negative connotations. It’s positive in a hierarchical sense and negative in a ethical sense. “Player” conveys this more explicitly, there’s a social game that a player aims to win, and rise up the social hierarchy, and yet there’s an unease about the ethical nature of this game.

I think you won’t get around actually approaching some women if you’d like to eventually find one to be with.

Of course you’re right, and I’m well aware of this. I discuss the problem here because it’s relevant and because it’s a safe place to vent a bit. ;-)
But I assure you I am working to get over it in real life.

do you have a female friend who’s familiar with the problem, possibly even one who identifies as a feminist? I wonder if it would be easier for you get over the “just do it”-moment if a feminist would tell you that it’s ok to talk to the woman you’d like to talk to? Do you think escalating an interaction would be easier for you, if the cues came from a feminist?

The weird thing for me is that I have a fairly easy time engaging and talking with women. I’m actually really confident in that regard (as well as confident in most other areas of my life). If I go to a bar setting or similar, I have little trouble striking up conversations with women and enjoying myself. I’m not a shy person at all. But I can only do it by making the encounter totally non-sexual.

In short, my problem isn’t difficulty with starting a conversation. My problem is that I’m deathly afraid of making someone uncomfortable by coming on to them.

And unfortunately I don’t think it would really work to have my feminist friend sit their with me and tell me when it’s okay to make a pass. ;-) It would make me far less comfortable, and would probably make me feel conspiratorial and predatory. Actually, frankly, I think just about any “coaching” might make me feel that way. Weird.

Ultimately I think I just need to bite the bullet and get over this idea that making women uncomfortable is some horrible crime. Clearly, if someone becomes uncomfortable I will back off. But I’m shooting myself in the foot by not even initiating anything. And to initiate carries an inherent risk of sometimes causing some discomfort for some people.

@Cessen – the Need thing is interesting. Maslow’s Heirachy of Needs is certainly a flawed model – but it’s still a reasonable starting point for the idea that what we ‘need’ is more complex than food and shelter.

I think suicide statistics are probably the most telling. The most prevalent risk characteristic for suicide is gender. Do we think that men are inherently weaker? Do we think that men are inherently more prone to mental illness? Or do we think that perhaps there’s some needs – beyond food and shelter, that are more commonly not met for men? Do we think that the prevalence of depression and mental illness is all about a purely chemical/organic condition – or is there a need, beyond food and shelter – that if left un-met can cause illness or even death?

One of the theories on the prevailing availability of suicide bombers is that the culturally prevalent gender dynamics. In many middle eastern cultures, boys out number girls due to a number of cultural traditions, and boys are often overwhelmed by the sheer difficulty in finding sexual gratification, let alone a rewarding relationship. A lot of evidence is suggesting that the unfulfilled sexual and relationship needs makes those young men highly susceptible to suicide propositions. Especially when combined with a promise of luridly fulfilled sexual fantasy and eternal companionship in the afterlife.

As a fetishist, I start to come apart at the seams if I don’t manage my kinks. In my case, fetish isn’t a cute word for kinky inclinations – it’s a condition where my sexual needs are fundamentally unsatisfied without particular and specific additions. I have an atypical set of sexual motivations, so my ‘needs’ and responses to unmet needs are pretty visible – but I think that while the things I need to meet those needs are atypical – the need and the response to unmet needs is pretty common – most people just don’t think of it in those terms or just don’t spend as much time trying to analyze sexuality. I think it’s also difficult for most men to talk about ‘needing’ sex without coming off as a horny net geek, a desperate loser, or some kind of high potential future sexual offender.

I do not use the word “creep” routinely at all, especially to describe men. I use the word creepy to describe places or situations that made me uncomfortable, but usually in a kind of uncanny or eerie way, not in a sexually-predatory way. But “creep” as a pejorative term for men I just don’t use much. I try to be conscious of any term that is a judgment and an insult.

However, there is one person who I did and have called a creep, and I would potentially still use that term today for him, not as an insult, but as a descriptive term. Which means your question then raises my curiosity — why? what about him was something that deserved that description?

This was a teenage boy a little older than me. I maybe was 14 at the time? Maybe he was 16? He lived in the same apartment complex I did.

I was a real misfit as an adolescent, lonely, unhappy, unpopular and unliked. Dealing with some serious but complicated sexual inappropriateness from my father, during those years, which is probably what made me so awkward and unhappy. This boy was clearly a misfit too, gawky, socially inept, disliked as well. Pale, unattractive, and, well, odd.

I didn’t much like him myself, but misfits often group together. I even felt a certain responsibility to be available as a friend or at least an ally, to other misfits. So I would be casually, cautiously friendly with him, a little at arm’s length, but decent enough. I’d talk to him, at least, and not a lot of people would. When you’re a misfit enough, you’ll take any comers. At least I did. I maybe think I had gotten this from the old childhood Christmas program Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and the Island of Misfit Toys. I knew I was a misfit, and I’d extend alliance to other misfits because I knew we were all kind of lost on the Island of Misfit Toys together.

I remember one conversation when he asked me what I liked to do. I thought he was just being friendly, and said one of the things I liked to do was walking in the woods. (There was a large wooded area near our apartment complex.)

Some later time, he asked me to go for a walk with him, in the woods. Well, okay. So we went for a walk a little ways into the woods, and then he found a log for us to sit on. I was a little mystified, sitting on a log isn’t walking in the woods, why would I want to do that, but okay, so I sat. Still on the principle of trying to be generally friendly and obliging to fellow misfits.
He sat. He sat closer. He put his arm around my shoulders and leaned in to kiss me.

And I got up real fast. Not what I wanted, not at all what I was expecting, for that matter. And if he was wanting to kiss me, then my real truth, that I really didn’t like him, that I was even kind of disturbed and repulsed by him, came to the fore. I didn’t want to kiss him at all, and that sense of responsibility to fellow misfits wasn’t enough to make me kiss him.

He got kinda angry at me. “I thought you said you liked walking in the woods!”

Ohhh. I remember being completely surprised that he had taken something entirely different from what I had meant. And I remember being surprised and even shocked that he was angry at me. That he felt that he deserved to have me kiss him, because he had taken me to the woods.

I don’t remember what I had said, but I know we left the woods quickly. I know I never felt in any danger, that we got back home uneventfully. He tried to get me to spend time with him a few more times, I told him no and avoided him, and he gave up.

Okay, so why would I have described him as a creep? Why did this one specific situation come back to my mind, many years later, when you asked for feedback about what a creep is?

His social ineptness, his paleness and unattractiveness, his being the kind of person no one else likes, are pretty standard parts of what most people say a creep is. But before he took me into the woods and tried to kiss me, those same things I had thought of as fellow-misfit things, not creep things. Which means that the scene in the woods is the essential thing that defined him as a creep. Well, of course, gotta be, because that’s also the only place where the sex is, in the story.

So then, thinking about it, I think the crux there was made up of two things. The fact that he presumed my interest is part of it. His anger at me for saying no points to that. But I think the other thing is, he presumed my interest when he didn’t “deserve” to. I think my surprise at his anger points to that. Because (from my adolescent point of view) I think the problem is that he should have known that he was a fellow-misfit.

Contrast creep with asshole and jerk.

What is an asshole, in the way a woman might say it about a man? Perhaps a man who is otherwise popular-enough, well-liked-enough, attractive-enough, socially-competent-enough, who presumes interest. And the woman acknowledges that another place, another time, another woman, might be willing to say yes. The “violation” here is smaller.

And the jerk? A man who is popular-enough, well-liked-enough, attractive-enough, socially-competent-enough, who presumes interest about a woman who in fact may be interested. She just resents how he makes his approach. It’s an even smaller violation.

So let’s come back to creep. It’s like, the creep should know that he doesn’t deserve to presume interest. He doesn’t deserve to initiate the approach. Like my adolescent sense of misfit, he should know that he didn’t deserve any better than to take any comer.

Creep is a judgement in the eye of the beholder. Because the man isn’t going to think he doesn’t deserve to make the approach, of course. And I think this is why men are so insulted when they think they are making an appropriate approach to a woman, and get called a creep. It’s like, they may be perfectly willing to get called an asshole. But they resent “creep” because that means the woman calling him a creep is saying that no woman at all would ever be interested. And that he ought to have known that. He ought to have known he didn’t deserve to cross out of misfit-dom, to end up in creep-dom.

@Cessen — And I get the strong impression that this is something that mainstream feminism doesn’t want to touch even with a ten-foot pole. And I really wonder if that’s most of why no acceptable behavior is defined: mainstream feminism is afraid of invalidating any woman’s experience, even if that experience might be problematic, so any behavior by a man is reserved as potentially inappropriate.

Maybe. I think it’s more a problem of the fact that feminists actually don’t necessarily have a great idea of how to give guys some direction on, as I once put it, “being supportive and non-oppressive while remaining overtly masculine”. This is why I, once again, am dying for some feminist PUAs to make a curriculum.

@Danny — Its one thing to point out that chivalry harms women because it forces the presumption that they are weak and cannot do anything for themselves. Its quite another to leap from that to declaring that the only reason men take part in chivalry is to satisfy their own egos and expect rewards from women for being nice.

Some men DO do this, though. I think the problem with that particular argument is that many feminists (like most people) are over-willing to generalize, and many men who hear it (like most people) are overly defensive and take it too personally.

I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but I think you’re seeing a black-and-white where I see shades of grey.

@Sam — I think awareness of the “generalized creep factor” is one way of helping to reduce the tension created by the value difference, by attempting to raise the value of male sexuality.

This is interesting, and a good way to put it. I’d like to hear more about why you think Thomas’s performance model contains a tacit assumption of scarcity, though.

@NG — As far as I know, nobody ever really discusses this issue and what may work for one male, may not necessarily work for others.

Yeah, I think that’s pretty obvious. Variables would at least include repressive-ness of upbringing, sexuality and alt-ness thereof, and attractiveness (much of which is learned).

I think this may be one of the reasons female kink writers are more likely to sympathize with masculinity issues. I think we tend to be more willing to push for what we want, more familiar with having to negotiate with partners who may not share or understand our sexuality, and more in touch with how our sexuality fucks us up if our needs are unmet. I’m startled by how often feminists who are willing to discuss masculinity in an open way are kinky.

Clarrise:Some men DO do this, though. I think the problem with that particular argument is that many feminists (like most people) are over-willing to generalize, and many men who hear it (like most people) are overly defensive and take it too personally.

I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but I think you’re seeing a black-and-white where I see shades of grey.

Oh no I see the shades of grey and know know full well there are men who do engage in chivalry only for the rewards. In fact that is why I said, “…declaring that the only reason men take part in chivalry is to…” There are men who take part in it because they think they have to in order to be considered a Real Man. There are men who take part it in because they really are simply trying to be nice (versus Nice). There are men who take part in it simply because they think that’s what they are supposed to do. And I’ll bet there are other reasons I’m not thinking of.

In all actuality I’m saying that when it comes to men taking part in chivalry most feminists are the ones that go into black and white mode and refuse to believe any other reason that men might take part in chivalry than expectation of favor and reward from women. It would be one thing if they acknowledge other reasons but for the most part they do not. They go straight to declaring that chivalry only harms women and only favors men. Personally I think there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and therefore chivalry must be done away with.

[…] excellent analysis of the construction of the male “creep”. Unfortunately it’s buried in a comment on her blog, and so is unlikely to get as much attention as it deserves. She begins by examining […]

read the guest post you wrote on feminists with sexual dysfunctions, and, strangely, felt emotionally very close to some things you said. I’ve been reading Foucault’s history of sexuality lately, and while I think he lost himself after the first one (by becoming too self-serving with the Greek thing) and (thus?) gets a lot of things wrong (I think) there is a common theme that is also still the denominator of the Foster-Wallace interview #28 – sex has never been attributed with a transcendence of its own (certainly in the Western cultural history, but probably beyond). Even disregarding Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, it has always been conceptualized as emotionally and physically imposing, pleasure derived was seen as compensation for an eternal itch and certainly not as liberation, and conceptually violent, partly because of consent issues, but mostly because of the direct connection of sex and procreation, which is also a reminder of the individual’s mortality. It’s probably not surprising that the French call orgasm “la petite mort” – the little death.

I think the email you quote is interesting, my initial understanding of creep certainly has elements thereof, although I wouldn’t go as far as equating creep with “absolutely undesirable person not accepting their supposed social place”.

“I’d like to hear more about why you think Thomas’s performance model contains a tacit assumption of scarcity, though.”

A tacit assumption of *equal* scarcity. This goes back to the assumption that female sexuality has a higher socially attributed value than male sexuality. We’ve discussed that in the first part with respect to the Foster-Wallace thing and other aspects. I’ve straightened out the ideas in comment #70 a bit in this comment at figleaf’s blog – http://www.realadultsex.com/comment/reply/2631/17675

I think sexuality will always be scarce in the sense that you don’t usually get it when you want it, but that effort is required to satisfy this need. Just like “there’s no free lunch” ;). But with respect to cultural practices assumptions about the relative value of sexuality become more important than the scarcity as such. If both women and men have to invest the same amount of energy to overcome the scarcity, then a performance model is totally possible. But if there *is* an inherent – innate – difference in sexual desire between the sexes – in the way evolutionary theory speaks of “female choice” – then a “performance” model is very likely not possible. I’m not sure where humans are in this respect – it’s pretty clear that there are a lot less ovaries than there is sperm and that will almost necessarily have some consequences for us. There is a certain polygyny in human history, historically, the likelihood of a woman reproducing was much higher than that of a man (almost twice as high). But it’s also clear that “female chocie” is not the only mate selection criterion in humans – we do have some sort of “mutual choice” (and some evolutionary scholars claim that “mutual choice” is responsible for the differential development of our brain compared to that of our closest genetic relatives). And since we cannot reliably determine the relative effects of biology and culturr within each individual, we will likely never know the extent to which a relative scarcity difference (which there certainly *is* now) can be overcome by changing cultural patterns – as suggested by Thomas – or whether, resp. to which extent – there will always be a difference in scarcity translating into a difference in desire translating into specific cultural patterns trying to deal with this. I think it’s a pretty open question, with more data than not pointing to *some* innate difference. So I was wondering how Thomas factors all that into his model, and his short reply was basically – I imagine myself a world in which this doesn’t matter…

And one personal thing. I’ve been confronted with the awkwardness of asking for consent this weekend. I’ve been to a private birthday party at a pub and one of the waitresses was a woman from the middle east. We started chatting whenever it was possible for her, workwise. After the party in the pub, some people went to a club, including me and her. When we walked there, she *asked* if she could hold on to my arm. Later, in the club, when we were sitting in the lounge of the club, she *asked* if she could rest her head on my shoulder. And when I eventually went home, she *asked* if she could hug me to say goodbye. It didn’t really feel “creepy”, but it was certainly awkward to have to decide that she could do what she was asking for, when no other woman had ever asked for these things. After the hug, I told her, that she doesn’t have to ask to hug me. If I ever don’t want her to hug me, I’d tell her… I have to say that I was probably more careful in my interactions with her than I would have been with women from a different cultural background, because of prejudices/assumptions I made about her because of that background – so it is possible that she read that as being “not interested” and thus felt the need to ask for something she wouldn’t have asked for in other circumstances. But still, there I was, feeling the weight of having to make a decision about whether she could hug me or not and I imagine I felt just what most women feel when they are confronted with such questions in a situation where they’d rather not make the decision pro-actively, but would prefer to react to it (say, by moving away when someone’s trying to kiss them).

Some later time, he asked me to go for a walk with him, in the woods. Well, okay. So we went for a walk a little ways into the woods, and then he found a log for us to sit on. I was a little mystified, sitting on a log isn’t walking in the woods, why would I want to do that, but okay, so I sat. Still on the principle of trying to be generally friendly and obliging to fellow misfits.
He sat. He sat closer. He put his arm around my shoulders and leaned in to kiss me.

And I got up real fast. Not what I wanted, not at all what I was expecting, for that matter. And if he was wanting to kiss me, then my real truth, that I really didn’t like him, that I was even kind of disturbed and repulsed by him, came to the fore. I didn’t want to kiss him at all, and that sense of responsibility to fellow misfits wasn’t enough to make me kiss him.

He got kinda angry at me. “I thought you said you liked walking in the woods!”

Ohhh. I remember being completely surprised that he had taken something entirely different from what I had meant. And I remember being surprised and even shocked that he was angry at me. That he felt that he deserved to have me kiss him, because he had taken me to the woods.

The writer was correct that there was a miscommunication, but I think she is incorrect about the nature of the miscommunication. The guy seemed to consider going for a walk in the woods, and sitting her down on the log, as part of a script. Going for a walk in the woods, sitting down on a log, him inching closer and putting his arms around her shoulder…

As Sam points out at FC, it doesn’t take a psychology degree to figure out what was going on here. It’s not her fault that she didn’t realize, because she was young and inexperienced. But then, so was he, so it’s unfair for her to blame him completely for this situation.

He didn’t necesarily feel “entitled” to a kiss because he had taken her on a walk. He was angry because (in his mind) she had acted like she wanted him to make a move, and then rebuffed him when he tried. He may have felt “entitled” to a kiss after reaching the end of the script, but even if he didn’t, he still probably felt pissed off that she had made a “bait-and-switch.”

The “bait-and-switch” notion reminds me of a weird situation a few years ago, and mine actually may qualify. I met a girl at a party, and we hit it off, but we got separated and I couldn’t get her contact info. So I told a mutual friend, “hey, your friend was cute; I’d like to get in touch with her and get to know her better.”

I got the contact info, and arranged for the girl to come clubbing with me. We went clubbing, and I let her borrow some accessories of mine to make a crazy outfit. Later in the night, I went to initiate a kiss, but she said “no.” And that was fine. I assumed that I had messed something up.

But then later she told me that she wasn’t interested in hooking up with anyone at this point. And I suddenly felt annoyed. If so, why did she accept a clubbing invitation from me in the first place? It’s not like I invited her in a purely platonic or covert manner; I told her friend that she was cute and I wanted to hang out with her and went to the effort to get her number. If I’d just asked her out at the party in an ambiguous way, that would have been different, but I displayed much more direct interest.

If she thought she might be interested, but decided that she wasn’t, that is totally fine; I know from studying pickup that these things don’t always work out. But if she gave no chance to something happening in the first place, then she was deliberately setting up a certain misunderstanding on my part… for her own benefit of getting driven to a cool club and introduced around. That possibility bothered me.

Given that she wasn’t interested, I wouldn’t have wanted her to be sexual with me as some sort of payment that I was entitled to. Nonono, actually, that would have been worse.

I just wish that if she knew she wasn’t interested in me as more than a friend, that she hadn’t accepted my invitation under false pretences and abused the dating script for her own benefit. If she had said “sure, I’ll come clubbing, as friends…” when I was inviting her, then we would have been on the same page from the start. I still would have taken her; I just wouldn’t have wasted my energy trying to make a move, and talked more with other girls.

I didn’t feel entitled to sex; I felt entitled to a little more honesty from her about her intentions after I was so upfront about mine (of course, now I know that it’s foolish to even expect that, but I’m in gender politics rant mode, not PUA practical mode right now). If there was entitlement anywhere, it was on her part. She potentially felt so entitled to me taking her out for a fun night clubbing that she thought it was acceptable to make a massive lie of omission and let me believe that her intentions were less than entirely platonic.

Of course, she might have believed that if I’d known that she only had platonic intentions, I might never have taken her (though I would have), so she hid her true intentions and played along with the script while it benefited. But isn’t that a little dishonest? Maybe she would have felt uncomfortable telling me “just friends” from the beginning… though she had no trouble telling me after I’d spent an evening taking her out, introducing her to people, and making sure she had a good time.

In the end, I wasn’t too mad, because I knew there were other possible interpretations of her behavior (like the possibility that she was interested in a small possibility of something happening, but she wasn’t sufficiently excited by me for it to work out). But the feeling of potentially being used was bad enough that I didn’t hang out with her again.

Unlike the guy in the email, I potentially had a valid beef, because the girl in my situation was old enough to know the script. Furthermore, I made my intentions clear from the start, and I invested more effort (which I’ve learned not to do until a woman is committed to an interaction with me).

But if there *is* an inherent – innate – difference in sexual desire between the sexes – in the way evolutionary theory speaks of “female choice” – then a “performance” model is very likely not possible.

Well, it’s possible… it’s just a rather one-sided performance. It’s just too easy for women to act like the audience, instead of a collaborative performer (except, perhaps, from efforts to make look good prior to the interaction). This doesn’t mean that some women don’t collaborate on the performance, it just means that they don’t always have to pull their weight. (And it also doesn’t relate to performance in relationships, where things become a bit harder for women than before; only dating prior to relationships.)

Check out Keys the VIP season 3 episode 7, a dating show for “players” competing, where a classic Mystery Method PUA compares male-female interaction with stand-up comedy performance.

I remember one time a PUA saying something like “you know, instead of exchanging drinks and dinners for sexual opportunities, we are just trading our seduction skills for sexual opportunities.” That makes the performance model and the commodity model look like flip-sides of the same coin: both cases are the guy expending more effort and resources for dates.

One problem with Thomas’ performance model is that there is little perceived incentive on women to actually perform beyond physical appearance in dating prior to relationships. The performance model has the same problem as “explicit verbal consent” and other feminist models: it’s quite possible that most women in our culture hate those models even more than most men do. And since women are behaviorally more selective, their preferences have a greater influence on norms.

(Note my word “perceived.” I actually do think that there are good reasons for women to put more work into dating and performance beyond their looks, and that they will have better chances of ending up with the guys they are well-matched with that way. But many women don’t seem to realize these advantages they are missing, and instead take the lazy route by making the guy do most of the work.)

When performance becomes a one-sided obligation for men to get dating opportunities, then performance becomes another form of exchange and commoditization: the man performs; the woman gives him a chance.

That said, the performance model is better than the commodity model, and it’s the basis of pickup.

I would love to hear Thomas develop his thoughts on the matter and see if he can answer these objections.

The short answer is that the Performance Model dispenses with scarcity economics as applicable to sexuality.

I’m not sure if he means that once people start following the Performance Model, scarcity economics will stop being applicable because sex differences in scarcity and selectivity will go away (perhaps by getting women to perform more somehow). If so, then awesome. But if he means that the theory of the Performance Model dispenses with an examination of relative scarcity, that seems like sticking one’s head in the sand. It’s like the old joke where the economist says “assume we have a can opener”, only this time it’s “assume that both genders are equally selective.”

@Hugh — Unlike the guy in the email, I potentially had a valid beef, because the girl in my situation was old enough to know the script.

How old is old enough? People are different ….

It’s just too easy for women to act like the audience, instead of a collaborative performer (except, perhaps, from efforts to make look good prior to the interaction).

Funny, my instinct would be to say the same about men. ;) Different emphases in what’s important, I suspect.

On a related note: an argument I recently made in some comments over on Feminist Critics is that if stereotypical sexual scripts worked better for women, then men wouldn’t have to work so hard to get women out on dates.

But many women don’t seem to realize these advantages they are missing, and instead take the lazy route by making the guy do most of the work.

The lazy route? Umm … I had to calm down before I wrote the following sentence.

I think you are unaware of how much effort merely “appearing” can take.

Personally, I suspect that I reject it at least as much because I literally hate putting forth the effort required to successfully “appear” far more than I hate taking on the social norms that encourage me to “merely” “appear”.

@Sam — When we walked there, she *asked* if she could hold on to my arm. Later, in the club, when we were sitting in the lounge of the club, she *asked* if she could rest her head on my shoulder. And when I eventually went home, she *asked* if she could hug me to say goodbye.

Funny. I usually do that, especially with new people. Partly because I’ve been very influenced by feminist consent models such as Hazel/Cedar’s essay in Yes Means Yes. I’ve never met anyone who seemed bothered by it, though I’ve met a lot of people who are bemused by it (and basically say, “you never have to ask”, which is okay by me).

In terms of the scarcity thing … it seems to me as if there is some misunderstanding about Thomas’s point? The point of the performance model is to enable thinking about sex as a kind of (musical metaphor) informal jam session. I guess scarcity can have an effect, just as any power dynamic can have an effect on sexuality, but I don’t see how that is an argument against the idea of the model.

Thomas is a jurist, no? Well, iudex non calculat ;) So maybe there’s an explanation. I wouldn’t call it a misunderstanding, more a lack of argumentative precision caused by a disdain for economic modeling of interpersonal interactions. It’s the same kind of thinking that is requiring the external joker variable “love” to take sexuality out of the economically accessible realm, even though Thomas explicitly renounces external joker variables and tries to attribute inherent transcendence. But still.

If Thomas is not taking scarcity into account in the performance model, then his comparison is a big category mistake. If everyone wants to be the singer in a band, and nobody wants to play guitar, we’ll get a lot of acapella choirs, but no rock band. Scarcity matters, and if one person suddenly decided to play guitar, she’d certainly have a lot of choice among experimental choir singers.

So Thomas is looking at all the problematic effects of the current scarcity/commodity structure (and while he’s, I think, partly a bit disingenous, I’d say our analyses are quite similar with respect to the value attribution (he liked the comment I made at figleaf’s blog when I linked to it from a comment at YMY)) but with respect to the jam sesson he proposes, he merely states that –

“If our boys learn from their preadolescence that sex is a performance where enthusiastic participation is normal
and pressure is aberrant, then the idea that consent is affirmative, rather than the absence of objection, will be ingrained. In such an environment, many kinds of rape that are accepted, tolerated and routinely defended would lose their social license to operate.”

I agree with that, but I think he missed the hidden assumption he’s making with “normal”. This “normal” is assuming equal desire/selectiveness for both sexes. Since if there still were a difference in sexual desire/selectiveness between the sexes (on average, as all people are different, of course), then *one* would automatically be forced back into the gatekeeper role, *because* this sex would be confronted with a higher demand than its own… Again, I’m not in a position to make a call about the actual nature of cultural/biologiacl scarcity in human sexuality. I’m just saying that it’s problematic to assume a model in which it doesn’t matter (in which all band-member markets clear by expending the same amount of energy) and not explain just why that hidden assumption is made.

As for –

“I think you are unaware of how much effort merely “appearing” can take. Personally, I suspect that I reject it at least as much because I literally hate putting forth the effort required to successfully “appear” far more than I hate taking on the social norms that encourage me to “merely” “appear”.”

I think that’s fair. But that said, I suppose what Hugh was getting at was that women aren’t usually initiating, which may lead to the impression that their mating game performance is “interactionally lazy”, but I think that’s an unfair description of the standard female approach, for the reasons you mention.

Clarisse,

as for –

“I’ve never met anyone who seemed bothered by it, though I’ve met a lot of people who are bemused by it (and basically say, “you never have to ask”, which is okay by me).”

Which is what I eventually did… I don’t know. Maybe it’s just that no woman ever asked for something like this, but it felt weird to be asked in this case. I can’t put it differently. Assuming I wouldn’t have wanted her to hold on to my arm, I’d have found a way to get rid of it without having to tell her “no”. I’m not saying that’s a better way to do it, just that being asked about something as small as that gave it additional importance that I wasn’t expecting to have to deal with at that point. And I assume that is similar to *asking* when the situation is appropriate for a kiss – it adds gravity and additional importance to a moment that may not have this importance otherwise. I assume it will be a matter of, well, “performance” in the moment. But still, I thought I mention this experience, because here I wasn’t the initiator and it still felt weird.

If you get a chance, watch the latest episode of GLEE – it’s got a lot of stuff about initating and consent in it, including one scene in which Finn, the quarterback, tells Kurt, the only openly gay guy at schol, that “you were so over me last year, if I had done this with a girl, she’d have gotten a restraining order”, and another in which a cheerleader has sex with a disabled guy and cannot understand that he later feels exploited.

Hugh,

“But then later she told me that she wasn’t interested in hooking up with anyone at this point.”

if I had to guess I’d say it was the “anyone” that mostly bothered you here? Because i think you probably guessed that she wasn’t sincere about her general lack of interest? I think you actually got the most likely explanation with this – “like the possibility that she was interested in a small possibility of something happening, but she wasn’t sufficiently excited by me for it to work out”. And she didn’t want to hurt you, because she still liked you and so she made up the “not interested in anyone” bit… But rejection sucks, everytime, regardless of attempts to make it less painful.

I felt similarly about an episode a couple of years back, way before I had become better with women, when I was at a party and a woman I found attractive mentioned to the host, a common friend, that she *really* needed to find a single man. I was mentally raising my finger and shout “here, here”, but of course I didn’t. I just wasn’t in the “man” category for her at that point, and I didn’t know how to communicate that I’d like to be in it. That was a painful moment.

As for my comment over at feministcritics about this – I’m also someone who’s often too slow to pick up on things other people don’t need a psychology degree for. But the main point of my comment wasn’t criticizing the author for not performing according to the script, but to answer Daran’s question –

“I wonder how much of the hostility directed toward the Seduction Community is predicated upon this idea that these men do not deserve to be approaching women.”

To which I said –

“Not much. If any, in my opinion. If so, then I’d say it’s a consequence of ignorance, misunderstanding, SC lingo, and a certain discomfort with men who use techniques that are questionable from an ethical point of view. Even tigtog at finallyfeminism101 had some good things to say about “some” PUAs, those helping “these guys” improve their social skills in the thread about how feminist men can express their sexuality. So I don’t think that much of the discomfort about the SC expressed by feminists has a lot to do with “these guys” not deserving any women.”

And I said this about men who usually don’t get a lot of female attention – which I assume the other “outcast” in the email didn’t get –

“Actually, *that* is a problem with guys who aren’t getting much of female attention, because they tend to open their hearts and arms far too quickly when they do get some attention, and then totally miscalibrate their efforts. I have a friend who routinely does this – last week, a drunk girl asked him to dance for a bit, then left for the bar, and he was totally ready to fall in love, while she was already dancing with someone else and had probably already forgotten about him. Thing is, in a free society, these different worlds of experience are bound to run into each other and there’s not much we can do about it except prepare the weaker ones for the disappointment, and hope that getting more attention will help them become less vulnerable and react more appropriately to such attention.”

What I was observing in my polemical previous post, was the different sorts of performances that men and women typically do in dating.

Male default performance:
– Looking good, though not quite as much effort as women (subculture dependent)
– Physically initiating
– Leading the interaction (e.g. deciding where to go and what to do next)

Female default performance:
– Looking good
– ???

Remember, this is the typical or baseline levels of performance. This is not the optimal levels of dating performance, which would look a lot more symmetrical.

If we really strip it down, then in some subcultures (like the mainstream) we could take away the expectation on men to look good partially or completely. We could also strip down the female beautification requirement too. An example of this subculture is geek culture. Furthermore, the more naturally beautiful a woman is, the less work of her looks she needs to do to get the same results.

In other cultures, it’s pretty typical for men to expend similar effort on their looks than women (e.g. young Italians on Jersey Shore). Hippie culture is another example.

When we look at the performance requirements in total, women indeed have plenty of work with augmenting their looks. In that sense, they aren’t being “lazy.”

I guess my laziness comment came from a couple different perceptions:

– Women’s beautification performance can be done prior to face-to-face interaction with men. It can be “cached” in advance, and then used broadband on all men who see her later, at the speed of light. Men’s jobs of initiating have to be done “in the field” under major performance and time pressure, and they are a lot higher precision and less “scalable.” Furthermore, male behavioral attractiveness moves much slower: at the speed of conversation. And it’s narrowband. A guy getting 5 numbers has to initiate 5 times. A woman giving 5 numbers only had to make herself look good once earlier in the night. (This would be like a woman’s eyeliner falling off after each guy she talked to in a club, such that she had to go reapply it. Except, she would be applying it in front of the next guy, and he would be judging her performance on doing so…)

– Beauty is a sort of mechanical labor that isn’t very difficult. It does depend a little on artistic ability, but that can just be copied from others. Men’s job of initiating and leading has a bigger learning curve for men who aren’t hypermasculine extraverted naturals.

Once we get out from behind the mirror and into the field, the majority of women’s baseline job is done (except, perhaps, for stuff like re-applying lipstick). If it’s the case that she doesn’t put in much behavioral effort when out in the field, and merely sits back while the guy does the behavioral work, then yes, that starts to look a bit lazy.

Since I’ve tried various stereotypically feminine beauty regimes, I consider myself qualified to gauge their difficulty. I’m not completely talking out of my ass, here. I’m willing to suggest that for most people, male or female, an hour or two in front of the mirror before the night starts is easier than the minute or two of anxiety prior to making the first move. I could be wrong, but I think it’s a strong enough possibility that it’s worth talking about.

The difference seems like sales vs. arts-and-crafts. Yes, there are some people who will be naturally better at sales, but most people will be better at the low/medium difficulty arts-and-crafts project that beauty is (yes, looking like a model is harder, but it’s not required).

There’s nothing wrong with women sitting back and coasting if they want to. Maybe “lazy” is a bit harsh. But the levels of typical performance that go on in the field just seem highly skewed towards men. Even if we take into account women’s larger arts-and-crafts project in front of the mirror, men still seem to be doing a far more difficult job than mechanical work with a small artistic component.

What am I missing here? What other categories of women’s performance might be going on? What might I be getting wrong about the difficulties of men or women’s dating tasks?

yeah, I think it’s really useful to break down performance into elements to make it more comparable.

I think the Clarisse (and I to a degree) reacted strongly to the word “lazy”. Because I don’t think that accurately captures the essence of what’s going on, because following a script can hardly be called lazy even if that script requires different tasks from different users and some seem easier than others.

I think that the relative attributed importance of the dimensions may also be different. So, assume we’re able to define a composite variable “dating effort” and we set the gender-specific required standard effort in the assumed standard game at 1 for women, and 1.2 for men (the numbers are, obviously, completely arbitrary, and merely indicative of my own assumptions, experience and intuitions and they cannot, also obviously, accurately represent individual perceptions of the challenges involved), then *most* of that 1 is going into the “appearance category”, while men have more dimensions to work with/compensate with – that’s the upside of the “bigger learning curve for men who aren’t hypermasculine extraverted naturals.”

“I’m willing to suggest that for most people, male or female, an hour or two in front of the mirror before the night starts is easier than the minute or two of anxiety prior to making the first move. I could be wrong, but I think it’s a strong enough possibility that it’s worth talking about.”

I willing to agree with you on that. But I’d also say that once one has learned the social skills and gained the ability to deal with approach anxiety, the ability to (possibly) reduce the effort on the “appearance” aspect may make this strategy look “lazy” in comparison – or to use your words: you’re taking one approach workshop and “cache” the effort over all future approaches while appearance has to be reapplied every night one goes out.

Look, I’m not saying that the script is not harder for men overall. I think it is. But that doesn’t make the female script “lazy”, in my opinion. And I think you’re indeed missing a part of the standard female performance – that is making herself *approachable* to the men she would like to attract without causing too much unwanted attention. Subtle communication, body language, glances, regulating physical proximity, etc. – that’s far from “just looking good”.

Plus, there’s usually consent decision making involved on each step of the escalation ladder and the need to communicate the decision, usually non-verbally. While we are assumed to climb the steps, women (in this script) have to convey the information we need to make the decision to climb further. Communication is rarely particularly efficient here, but it’s still communication. Do I think it’s harder to risk climbing the ladder than being confronted with an option on each step? Yes. But that doesn’t make one role “lazy”.

On a meta level – I was so surprised to read Foucault’s analysis of the old Greek gay (pupil/philosopher) seduction rituals and rules. Sure, Foucault was a bit self serving, but in his analysis, only this kind of seduction was considered ‘erotic’, as it was a negotiation between free full individuals (something that could not be said about their concept of all other, including heterosexual relationships, including marriage). Reading this I could not help but assume that it was the Greek’s philosophers inclination towards moral considerations including sexuality coupled with a strangely conservative inability to fathom different social standards that led them to socially institutionalize the particular kind of homoerotic relationship (so the opposite of what Foucault thought). Had the Greeks considered women as full free equals then they would have likely developed a philosophy of heterosexual seduction. So, thinking about it from *that* perspective (also thinking here of your last post at feministe, Clarisse, particularly the comment about how things that are now considered rape have been legal for ages) – that the creation of *any* heterosexual interactional erotic ‘art’ and that includes, I think, the seduction community (to a degree) is a testament to women’s liberation.

You are not missing this, in so far as you’re well aware of what I’m about to point out, but your comment is missing this:

There is a huge body of mainstream guidance available to women about how to perform their performance. Pick up any woman’s magazine, and you’ll find articles on affordable fashion, make-up tips, hairstyling, etc.

By contrast there is an absolute dearth of effective guidence for men. And much of what is out there is useless. “Just be yourself”, etc. This is so much the case, that as soon an enabling technology (the internet) came along, a whole subculture sprang into existence whose primary function is to fill that informational gap.

I think the Clarisse (and I to a degree) reacted strongly to the word “lazy”. Because I don’t think that accurately captures the essence of what’s going on, because following a script can hardly be called lazy even if that script requires different tasks from different users and some seem easier than others.

Yeah, the word “lazy” was the least important part of my analysis and didn’t communicate my point very well. I retract it.

I willing to agree with you on that. But I’d also say that once one has learned the social skills and gained the ability to deal with approach anxiety, the ability to (possibly) reduce the effort on the “appearance” aspect may make this strategy look “lazy” in comparison – or to use your words: you’re taking one approach workshop and “cache” the effort over all future approaches while appearance has to be reapplied every night one goes out.

That’s a good point. Once the social skills become intuitive, then men’s work massively drops down. It just takes years of practice and failure to get to the point where things feel easy for most guys.

And the work women put into appearance gets easier and faster with practice, also, though it will still take a base level of time.

Look, I’m not saying that the script is not harder for men overall. I think it is. But that doesn’t make the female script “lazy”, in my opinion. And I think you’re indeed missing a part of the standard female performance – that is making herself *approachable* to the men she would like to attract without causing too much unwanted attention. Subtle communication, body language, glances, regulating physical proximity, etc. – that’s far from “just looking good”.

This falls into the category of optimal dating skills, not baseline dating skills. It would certainly help women to do these things, but I’m not convinced that women of average attractiveness and above actually need to do them (in the way that men need to initiate, for instance).

It would be like mainstream middle-class guys dressing up like rockstars or models. Would it help a lot and give more choices? Yes (pickup artists have proven this). Do they have to in order to decently in dating? No, as long as they are at least average in other areas. Do they know they would benefit from it? No.

Have you ever started learning a skill, got to where you could start getting basic results, and then stopped putting in anymore additional effort? It just seems a lot easier for women to get to the point where they are doing OK with the opposite sex (e.g. be able to go on regular dates with decently attractive people)… and then just stop putting in any more effort. Instead of calling these women “lazy,” let’s instead say that they are missing out on their full potential in dating. They just don’t know it, because they are doing OK.

My analysis was about what is necessary to be going on regular dates with reasonably attractive people, not about what is optimal for one’s goals, or for contexts beyond dating. The only possible items on my list are major requirements.

In fact, I’m not even convinced that most of beauty procedures are a requirement, at least not in white middle-class culture.

Although women’s body shape matters more, I suspect that each gender’s actual requirements for style (that’s dependent on effort in front of a mirror) aren’t so different. Style is less important for women than Cosmo says, and it’s more important for men. Women can fill pretty much all of men’s typical style requirements merely by wearing somewhat stylish clothes that fit, and perhaps nail polish or a bit of eyeliner.

Beyond that, it’s mainly genetics and being in shape that matter. Extra work on style serves other purposes rather than raw attraction: signaling sexual availability (or lack thereof), signaling what types of males she is looking for (see Mickey’s comments in the other thread), or competing with other women for status.

Worldwide, the flashy-female / drab-male norms of white middle-class culture are not the default. In many other cultures, both genders are equally flashy, or equally drab. For instance, there are higher standards for beauty and femininity for women in some hip hop cultures than in the mainstream, but there are also higher standards for men’s style.

If a woman with above average physical attractiveness stops using makeup and wearing stiletto heels, her success with men is not going to completely tank. What will probably happen is that the guys who go for her will change. Neither will her success completely tank if she doesn’t work to make herself approachable, or if she doesn’t work to give useful signals on dates.

In contrast, if you take a man with above average looks (and even social skills) and he stops initiating and leading, then his success is going to tank (unless he is at the absolute top tier of male attractiveness, or famous).

When you look at it this way, women clearly have strong base level requirements, whereas it’s not at all obvious that men typically have any strong base level requirements other than looks, which women largely can’t change. (Again, this is for dating, not for relationships, where men suddenly start to have behavioral requirements.)

Since women are more selective, men who aren’t in the top tiers of attractiveness can’t even afford to be behaviorally picky. They are working hard enough just to get women of similar looks, intelligence, and accomplishments, to notice them. A common male strategy is to go on dates with any available woman who fits their looks requirements, and then figure out relationship compatibility later.

I think the flip side, where Clarisse is saying that men seem to be the audience, is that women go through a fair amount of work to look attractive and that it seems men usually don’t bother much with either appearance or pick up methods; they just look and sometimes make fairly basic approaches.

“This falls into the category of optimal dating skills, not baseline dating skills. It would certainly help women to do these things, but I’m not convinced that women of average attractiveness and above actually need to do them (in the way that men need to initiate, for instance).”

you think? I’m not so sure. There are certainly differing degrees of “quality” of that performance, but I almost never have the impression that women, regardless of their attractivity, are merely passive. They don’t tend to initiate conversations, but they are still more or less active participants in the social space in which any interaction is going to happen. I mean, how likely is it she walks past you in a matter of 5 minutes, still always maintaining plausible deniability (getting a drink, chatting with a friend, going to the loo). It’s not passive, if it *is* intentional, but the difficulty is differentiating signal from noise, as she may actually not have been demonstrating (plausibly deniable) interest by doing those things in front of you.

“In fact, I’m not even convinced that most of beauty procedures are a requirement, at least not in white middle-class culture. … Beyond that, it’s mainly genetics and being in shape that matter. Extra work on style serves other purposes rather than raw attraction: signaling sexual availability (or lack thereof), signaling what types of males she is looking for (see Mickey’s comments in the other thread), or competing with other women for status.”

Yeah, totally agree, although I’d say it’s an age dependent variable. In general I’d also agree that Style/Grooming is more important for men than for women (that is, having a certain base level).

“In contrast, if you take a man with above average looks (and even social skills) and he stops initiating and leading, then his success is going to tank (unless he is at the absolute top tier of male attractiveness, or famous).”

Yeah, but that’s a logical consequence of a game in which the man is required to initiate, at least in the initial stages of the interaction. And I would still like to mention that women who are actually only passive bystanders (and don’t signal availability by, say, grooming) do get ignored, even if they are quite attractive – I have a female friend who looks similar to, say, a 25yo Cathering Keener, and still complains about never being approached. Seriously, she once told me she had made out with a guy because there was no alternative available. Even for attractive women, making themselves visible/approachable seems to be somewhat important.

“When you look at it this way, women clearly have strong base level requirements, whereas it’s not at all obvious that men typically have any strong base level requirements other than looks, which women largely can’t change.”

I’m pretty sure women have stronger base level requirements than men. But if I remember some speed dating research I once read correctly, then they are also more flexible when it comes to how a guy’s composite value is structured (with visual attractiveness being the most important variable in the set) while men really only seemed to care about the woman’s looks, regardless of what they said they were looking for. That effect was also visible in women, but less pronounced.

“A common male strategy is to go on dates with any available woman who fits their looks requirements, and then figure out relationship compatibility later.”

Yeah, but that’s sort of the structure of any courtship process, unless it’s online blind dating, so even though women are more selective, their initial set of criteria must be observable in the venue where the initial contact happens.

I think the flip side, where Clarisse is saying that men seem to be the audience, is that women go through a fair amount of work to look attractive and that it seems men usually don’t bother much with either appearance or pick up methods; they just look and sometimes make fairly basic approaches.

Typical daily schedule, whereas I might be approached but not seeking or in a context where it would reasonably happen: no make-up, hair down and maybe unbrushed (depends on days, and I don’t everyday). Casual wear.

Time to prepare: 20-30 minutes, including a bath or shower of 10-20 minutes…and that’s when I brush for a while.

If I want to meet someone or go in a place where meeting someone is likely, and desired on my part (ie I don’t go there to read or something): maybe some make-up, hair down and probably brushed, clothes depend.

Time to prepare: 30-40 minutes, including a bath or shower of 10-20 minutes. Make-up takes 10 minutes to apply, if I put everything on (don’t always) and take my time, also includes hair brushing time. Unless I decided to wear a corset (which I don’t own, but could eventually), getting dressed takes the same time as casual wear.

If I decided to forego hair brushing, which I often do, I would save 10 minutes. I don’t feel forced to brush my hair (if I stop for too many days I get big tangles – but societal pressure…nope). Or to have make-up on, I tend to do it because my boyfriend appreciates it and it’s not something I consider costly either in time or effort (and certainly not money, given how not-often I use it).

So umm yeah, I can expand minimal efforts on my looks and look presentable. I’ll admit I don’t care if my bra straps show, why the heck should pantie lines matter or if the air is humid (because hair reacts to it and becomes more frizzy). Also, unlike that ad where they prevent color-fading on their clothes and say “your clothes should always look new”, I don’t care one iota.

People know clothes age, and as long as it’s clean and has no holes in it or missing buttons, I wear it, faded or not. Sounds like a stupid thing like the “yellow underarms” that exist…because you put deodorant in the first place (the yellow is a chemical reaction between the metal in it and your sweat…don’t use any and you won’t have a problem) – and yeah, everyone sweats some, it ain’t toxic, it’s life so I see no reason to mask what little smell someone could have from me…it’s called pheromones).

I’ve never used deodorants, and have never had a complaint. I’d probably have one if I told people in general (my boyfriend knows), but they’d never notice either way. It’s just the ‘eww I don’t do that’ factor. Sort of like the obligatory hair-washing every single day. People think going off shampoo for a week would reek and be dirty and greasy and etc…but have never tried it. I go 3 weeks without shampoo easily, no greasyness, no smell, no dirt.

Sorry if that’s more of a rant, but yeah, people feel forced to do those…when they don’t even stop to think of why. Asperger is the sense that nothing is common sense, everything is testable, and if it sounds stupid, it probably is.

I’ve been quiet because I’m trying not to let too many threads distract me from other projects I’m working on. I usually spend a lot of time on comments and sometimes I simply don’t have that time to spend these days. (I recently guest posted at Feministe again, this time about BDSM and — in some ways — masculinity, and some of those comments have been really interesting and complicated too. This post may trigger some of you guys, seriously. I think Scootah got so triggered that I’m not sure we’ll ever see him around here again. You have been warned.http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/10/18/there-it-is/ )

In terms of female effort: I spent at least 50% of my 1.5 hours walking yesterday composing an angry reply to Hugh in my head, but I think I’ll leave it at this:

Female dating performance is not limited to attractiveness — it also includes considerable covert behavior. The fact that this behavior is invisible to you doesn’t mean it does not exist. The fact that this behavior is trained socially and that PUA-style curricula aren’t around does not mean the behavior doesn’t exist, either.

Female dating performance also includes a huge amount of internalized anxiety about appearance. This frankly counts as significant emotional labor, in my opinion. Sometimes this translates to extra physical labor. I gained 20 pounds in Africa and at one point I was feeling so anxious about it that I wouldn’t let myself eat more than some vegetables, some protein and exactly 9 wheat crackers per day. This usually doesn’t happen to me, but it sometimes does, and I don’t even have an eating disorder.

In short, to paraphrase: Correctly playing the role of an attractive and socially-acceptable woman is harder than you think. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

And I would still like to mention that women who are actually only passive bystanders (and don’t signal availability by, say, grooming) do get ignored, even if they are quite attractive – I have a female friend who looks similar to, say, a 25yo Cathering Keener, and still complains about never being approached.

And this kind of thing (I’ve heard similar stories before) strongly suggests to me that, in fact, the large majority of men do respect a lack of interest signals from women.

@Clarisse:

Female dating performance is not limited to attractiveness — it also includes considerable covert behavior.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. This is very much starting to sound like a big-ass “grass is greener” thing. In reality, the situation sucks for everyone.

I imagine it’s probably especially frustrating for women when they are dealing with guys they are interested in but that ignore covert signals. And for many guys (such as myself) it’s frustrating because the signals are plausibly deniable (as Sam put it) and ambiguous by nature, so there is a risk of being a “creep” if the signals don’t turn out to be what you thought they were.

Motley: I suspect that your Disarming Grin may, alas, be one of those things that only sociopaths and the like can pull off.

Or anyone who’s willing to put in some time in front of a mirror every day, practicing one expression, for a few decades. So yeah… that might be only sociopaths. But it’s worth it.

(It’s worth practicing the sharky-grin too, if you’re aiming for the same target demographic that I am. Though it’s sometimes hard not to laugh when they ask if my teeth are real. Yes, miss, they are. Nobody wears two sets of fake vampire teeth to the company party. Except maybe the Halloween party, which this isn’t. Jeeze.)

Hugh,

In contrast, if you take a man with above average looks (and even social skills) and he stops initiating and leading, then his success is going to tank (unless he is at the absolute top tier of male attractiveness, or famous).

This isn’t quite the case, seriously. (Either that or I am in the absolute top tier of male attractiveness, which I don’t think I am for more than maybe five percent of womankind.) There are ways to initiate without initiating, if you know what I mean (which I think might be what Clarisse is saying).

Clarisse,

On a related note: an argument I recently made in some comments over on Feminist Critics is that if stereotypical sexual scripts worked better for women, then men wouldn’t have to work so hard to get women out on dates.

I’m trying to be nice here, (and you know I love you) but really: this is as wrong. If the sexual script worked for men, then you’d never have heard the phrase Nice Guy (TM), and you’d never have heard the phrase “rape culture,” at least not from a woman.

If the sexual script didn’t work for women, the book (written by a woman) about dating while pretending to be a man would say the exact opposite of everything it says.
Men have to work so hard to get dates because women can afford to be selective, and most men can’t. That’s a script that advantages women. (It flips in your fifties, but whatever).

But this is an interesting notion for me. The more I think about it, the more I notice that, though I generally play the alpha-male role to the hilt, within most relationship contexts, I actually tend to (deliberately) play more of a female-coded role, when I can set it up that way (meaning, when I already have disproportionate power in the relationship, so I can choose to have more disproportionate power). It’s more useful to be the one desired than to be the one desiring (though it used to be somewhat difficult to set things up that way, since I’m male).

Put a different way, I much prefer to be the partner who’s doing the “Skinner box” impression than the partner who’s desperately pressing the button hoping for a pellet. For obvious reasons, I think.
The female role is the position of power in the current dating model, and if the current dating model didn’t work for women, they’d make men use another one.

I’m not sure about commenting at feministe, so I’m saying this here. I didn’t think there was anything triggering in your post, I’m not sure why Scootah read you wrong with that quote. Some of the comments were borderline, but that’s to be expected for such a topic on a feminist blog.

There are really only two questions with respect to this matter, in my opinion: One – is consent of women at all possible, can it be meaningful in patriarchy? That’s the question Hugo asks and the origin of the Stockholm syndrom accusation you’re getting over and over. Two – how do we reconcile (at least) two perspectives into one when it comes to deciding what *actually* happened. That’s the core of Cara’s comment – in extreme situations, you could well end up with an accident of communication, and one person would feel raped while the other would believe everything was perfectly consensual. Nothing here is logically tied to BDSM, BDSM just accentuates the questions and logical problems we’re dealing with here.

As for answers – the first part is simple, in my opinion. We’re all influenced by society, but if one expression of female free will are invalid because of that than logically *all* expressions of female free will are logically invalid and that includes everything explained by the radical feminists accusing you of Stockholm syndrome. If you are suffering from anything, they certainly are, too. It’s either-or and thus a logically self-defeating argument and probably only still around because it’s so triggering it’s hard to simply ignore it.

The second part is much trickier because there *are* at least two perspectives. I think it is certainly possible, like Cara says, to feel raped while the other person believed in enthusiastic consent – particularly in complicated situations like they are probably more common in BDSM (which is why BDSM people spend so much time on becoming better at reading other people). But how can we deal with ‘subjective rape’ when the existence of the concept itself also implies that what felt like rape to one person was consensual sex (possibly subjectively enthusiastically communicated) from at least one other perspective.

Staying away from legal definitions in the US that I am not familiar with, I think it’s quite obvious that “intent”, in the case of a rape “intent to harm” is a nessary element of the subjective reality of the perpetrator. If it cannot reasonably assumed then I would say that we just have to live with the fact that there are, sadly, two incongruent versions of reality.

As for the dating effort thing – can we please avoid this turning into a “who has it worse”-kind of thing?

“The fact that this behavior is invisible to you doesn’t mean it does not exist. The fact that this behavior is trained socially and that PUA-style curricula aren’t around does not mean the behavior doesn’t exist, either.”

Hmm, the fact that it’s (assumed) invisible (to Hugh/me/men) is interesting – what are you exactly talking about? Something like “regulating proximity” as I mentioned above, or something else? if this behaviour is *actually* invisible to men what makes it dating/mating performance? Or is this somehow related to coded intra-gender status battles?

Sure. But it’s not strictly tied to gender either (not that you meant that, but just to clarify). And to be fair, some of that is body type and facial structure.

Back in college me and some friends had a “girl’s night in” for a female friend of ours. Our college was very heavily male, and she felt kind of isolated as one of the few girls there. So we all dressed in drag and had a party for her. It was hell of fun, actually. And she really loved it, apparently. :-)

We took pictures of the process and the party, and I put some of the pictures of me up on my webspace and sent them to some friends and my little bro’.

I have heard from multiple people since that it kind of disturbed them because they were attracted to me in some of those photos. Apparently I pulled it off really well, at least in some of the photos.

I think my favorite was when my little brother was first looking through the pictures, his roommate walked by, glanced over, and asked, “Who’s the hot chick?” He was dismayed to find out it was a guy.

Anyway, partly just a fun story. But also partly to illustrate that masculinity/femininity even insofar as it’s not a performance is not strictly tied to gender. There are people of both genders that pull off drag very convincingly.

There are certainly differing degrees of “quality” of that performance, but I almost never have the impression that women, regardless of their attractivity, are merely passive.

There are differing degrees of quality of women’s performance, but I just don’t see that performance as a big factor in the dating success of women of at least average conventional attractiveness.

I mean, how likely is it she walks past you in a matter of 5 minutes, still always maintaining plausible deniability (getting a drink, chatting with a friend, going to the loo). It’s not passive, if it *is* intentional, but the difficulty is differentiating signal from noise, as she may actually not have been demonstrating (plausibly deniable) interest by doing those things in front of you.

This sort of behavior is a great example of what I’d like to believe that women do… I just have trouble believing that it actually matters very much in the big picture, and here’s why:

1. It’s unclear that women in general are this strategic. People in general are not strategic unless they have to be, nor are they very introspective, unless they are forced to be to get something they want. I’m just not convinced that a very high proportion of women of at least average physical attractiveness are forced to be so strategic.

2. It’s unclear how well this behavior actually works. What percentage of the time does it actually change whether a man approaches a woman? My intuition is that most of the time, whether the guy approaches depends more on him than on anything the woman does.

And I would still like to mention that women who are actually only passive bystanders (and don’t signal availability by, say, grooming) do get ignored, even if they are quite attractive – I have a female friend who looks similar to, say, a 25yo Cathering Keener, and still complains about never being approached.

That’s an interesting observation. I wonder how often “never” is, and what men are available to her through her own social circle. She might be too intimidating for many men to approach.

In my experience, women who look like Hollywood actresses don’t lack approaches. Whenever I was clubbing with my ex and went to the bathroom, I always came back to find some dude trying to chat her up.

This isn’t quite the case, seriously. (Either that or I am in the absolute top tier of male attractiveness, which I don’t think I am for more than maybe five percent of womankind.) There are ways to initiate without initiating, if you know what I mean (which I think might be what Clarisse is saying).

I do know what you mean. If I never initiated overtly again, I would do OK with women, but my success would tank relative to where it is now.

If you are in the top tier of attractiveness for any nontrivial group of women who aren’t much lower in attractiveness/wealth than you, then you might still be able to maintain decent dating success without overtly initiating. The average guy is not at the top tier of attractiveness for any group of women who aren’t significantly lower in attractiveness.

The more I think about it, the more I notice that, though I generally play the alpha-male role to the hilt, within most relationship contexts, I actually tend to (deliberately) play more of a female-coded role, when I can set it up that way (meaning, when I already have disproportionate power in the relationship, so I can choose to have more disproportionate power).

PUAs call this “stealing the frame.” Which implies that the woman’s frame is a powerful frame that they actually want to have, at least for some components.

The female role is the position of power in the current dating model, and if the current dating model didn’t work for women, they’d make men use another one.

I think this is a good point, but the problem is that once a dating model is entrenched, it only has to pass an extremely low bar of satisfaction to endure. Once that model becomes the default, it’s hard for people to imagine anything else; they might simply not understand how better models could exist (e.g. I’m willing to accept the possibility of a “false consciousness” argument).

If you are a woman who wants a better model, you will have a hard time motivating collective action from women who find that the current model is good enough. So we can only assume that the current model passes a very low bar of female preferences.

@Clarisse – I’m still following the conversation and planning to reply, or rejoin the conversation at some point. I think I lost all the points I was trying to make in being irritated (largely at RL stuff entirely unrelated to the conversation) and thought it was probably better to STFU until I was focused enough to make the points I wanted too, instead of being another cranky idiot on the intarwebs.

I used to believe that women’s dating performance was a lot more important. A while ago in the seduction community, there were a bunch of discussions on a women’s sub-forum about whether women need “game.” What I heard the women saying is “sure, we don’t need game to get laid by random douchebags, but game is useful for getting the guys we actually want, and getting them into relationships.” This perspective made a lot of sense to me.

For a while, I was very optimistic about how game could help both men and women. While I still believe that women’s performance matters in some ways (e.g. turning dating into relationships, getting with men at high tiers of attractiveness), over the years my impression of the importance of performance for women has gotten less and less, particularly for dating performance that’s actually in “the field” rather than in front of a mirror. What changed?

– Seeing how often women, either acquaintances or female friends, get approached regardless of whether they invite it, and how much more attention they get relative to males of similar social skills and attractiveness

– Seeing women get plenty of male attention regardless of their social skills, as long as they are above average in conventional attractiveness

– Trying out a bunch of female-typed fashion and beauty practices, and discovering that they are easy mechanical work (for me, at least)

– Getting a better sense of what average people are actually like, and the levels of introspection and analysis they perform

Here are the conclusions that I’m pretty confident about (on average):

– Women put more work into their grooming and style than men
– Women’s physical appearance matters more than men’s
– Men put more work into initiating and leading than women
– Men’s behavioral and personality traits matter more than women’s
– Women’s behavior and personality traits play a large role in men’s relationship criteria than in men’s sexual criteria

Here are some ideas that are still up in the air:

– We can create a composite measure of “performance” in dating
– On that measure, men do more work in the “field”
– On that measure, men do more work in general, taking account both work in the field, and work in front of the mirror
– Women of at least average attractiveness can commonly attain decent dating success without engaging in very much intentional performance in the field

By “up in the air,” I mean that I’m somewhere between 50% and 55% sure of them. I’m not wedded to any of these perceptions, but they are just strong enough that I consider them worth debating with people who have different experiences from mine and who will be able to help me figure out if they make any sense.

Clarisse said:

In terms of female effort: I spent at least 50% of my 1.5 hours walking yesterday composing an angry reply to Hugh in my head, but I think I’ll leave it at this:

I’ll have to look forward to it.

Female dating performance is not limited to attractiveness — it also includes considerable covert behavior. The fact that this behavior is invisible to you doesn’t mean it does not exist.

That’s true. I don’t know firsthand the behavioral measures that women go through in dating. Here is what I do know:

– Women commonly take behavioral measures for turning dating into a relationship
– I can imagine many ways that some women could improve their dating success through more performance
– I know of certain sorts of intentional approachability behavior like hovering or passing by that Sam touched on; I just have no evidence about how widespread or effective such behavior is, and how much it attributes to women’s success

If you can tell me sometime what you think the categories of female dating performance are, both in the field and outside of it, I would be very interested. I’d also like to know how common you think they are in women, and why you think so. Knowing these things will shift my beliefs; I don’t know how much, but they will (and they’ll get stored in the back of my head, and pulled out again if I hear other women saying either similar or contradictory things).

Female dating performance also includes a huge amount of internalized anxiety about appearance. This frankly counts as significant emotional labor, in my opinion.

This is also a component of female dating performance that I think is quite common. It seems analogous to make internalized anxiety over initiating and “creeping women out.”

At the same time, I don’t think that anxiety has symmetrical effects on male and female dating performance: it has a much more damage effect on male performance for several reasons.

Anxiety damages social skills a lot more than mechanical skills. Just a little anxiety can screw up initiating, while it’s not going to screw up someone’s outfit or makeup. Sure, it’s plausible that appearance anxiety could make someone walk out the door a mess, but as long as they are a “hot mess,” it’s OK. Anyway, even women with appearance anxiety seem to be able to handle the tasks of getting ready, which isn’t surprising, because those tasks aren’t actually hard (the hard part is probably making decisions and dealing with the anxiety). I know plenty of women who are highly neurotic about their appearances, yet in spite (or perhaps partly because?) of this, they are still stylish, get plenty of male attention, and have boyfriends whenever they want to.

Even without anxiety, men’s “in-field” tasks are just a more difficult sort of work for most people than women’s tasks in front of a mirror. As I argued before, basic beauty is like casual arts-and-crafts level of difficulty, while men’s initiating and leading is a lot closer to the difficulty of professional sales or stand-up comedy.

Beauty isn’t so high precision, and doesn’t occur under so much time pressure as initiating and leading. If you mess up your eyeliner, you can rub it off and try it again; you have an “undo” feature. Guys have no “undo” feature when initiating. You can’t be like, “You stay there, Ima back up and try this again” (actually, you can do this if you’re smooth, but it isn’t a real “undo”).

Furthermore, beauty doesn’t have significant barriers to entry. You can practice consistently and get better, and you can do this out of sight of men. For male initiating and approaching, you have to actually throw yourself into the fire to get better; it’s not like you can do 100 approaches at home that actually mean anything. And it can be really hard to get started in the first place because beginners spend a lot of time get blown out before they can even learn anything.

I acknowledge that as a guy, my experience trying out female-typical beauty and style measures isn’t the same experience as for women. But I’ve never heard women tell me that beauty is actually hard. Annoying? Time-consuming? Anxiety-provoking? Costly? Painful? Inauthentic? Yes. But hard? No. In contrast, I’ve seen lots of evidence from men that they experience initiating and leading to be hard.

Correctly playing the role of an attractive and socially-acceptable woman is harder than you think

I’m not talking about playing the role at a “correct” level. I’m talking about playing the role at a more basic level.

Don’t get me wrong: I do agree that women performing in the field can be a great help to actually get with the guys they want in a time-efficient manner. My perception is just that women with above average conventional attractiveness who don’t take such measures aren’t going to see their success with men tank to an unacceptable level, such as going months/years without dates who aren’t vastly lower in physical attractiveness.

I could be wrong in this perception, but it’s based on seeing plenty of young women with above average conventional attractiveness in college or club environments having their pick of boyfriends or hookups even when they were some combination of low in social skills, low in self-esteem, highly self-absorbed, or lacking in self-awareness. For them, satisfying their own preferences is the limiting factor in their dating success as they seem to define it, not satisfying men’s preferences beyond looks. Yes, they could potentially get better guys and have higher quality relationships if they engaged in more dating performance, but they don’t seem to consider this a priority.

Since behavior and initiating is such a bigger factor in men’s success than women’s, it makes sense that if they stop performing, their success will tank more than women’s. I guess the question is, “how much more?”

Language I’ve used so far like “requirement” or “basic level of dating success” are a bit slippery. Requirement relative to what standard of success? What is a “basic” level dating success: “consistently being able to find a potential relationship partner from among people you are dating”, “always having at least one person interested in dating you”, “never going months/years without having at least one person interested in you”?

A more rigorous formulation would be something like this:

My intuition with about 55% probability is that we could non-completely-arbitrarily define “basic level of dating success” to be a threshold such that (for people of at least average physical attractiveness) men ceasing what we define as their in-field dating performance will drop below the threshold on average, while women ceasing their in-field performance will remain above that threshold on average and retain a “basic level of dating success.” Yes, that’s a mouthful, but should I go back to saying that it’s easier for women to be “lazy” in dating?

Hmm, where have I heard that before?

From me, discussing feminists generalizing about the difficulty of men’s dating tasks while being utterly impervious to arguments to the contrary from men. If it looks like I’m doing the same thing in reverse, then well, oops.

I like to think that while I’m raising some potentially controversial possibilities, but I’m actually open-minded towards contrary evidence and trying to seek it out; I like to think that folks here know me this well. Furthermore, I actually have arguments that could support the plausibility of such generalizations. By “plausibility,” I don’t mean something I’m confident about, but rather something that is worth discussing.

As I recently mentioned on FC, I’m not against generalizations about gender advantage. I’m all for such generalizations, as long as evidence for them is discussed, and what they mean is nailed down. (For instance, I’ve been trying to operationalize different elements of “performance,” such as time-pressure, and necessary precision.)

I don’t want to make a pact with you where I sit on my impressions of female advantages, in exchange for you sitting on your impressions of male advantages so we can have no friction and be all chummy all the time. I’d prefer that we are all able to raise such perceptions, and discuss what leads to them, and the evidence for and against. This is an experiment that has never been done in the history of gender politics. In the end, maybe minds will change. Or maybe we will just be staring at each other across mounds of conflicting anecdotal evidence. Either way, it’s OK.

Unfortunately, the English language isn’t very good for communicating about ideas with a low degree of certainty: it’s hard to talk about ideas that you assign merely 50-60% belief to, without looking like you are invested in them.

I think I’ve been a bit more rigorous in this comment than I have been in my initial comments on these subjects. Maybe I should have said it like this the first time. But could I have done so? It took this conversation to make me apply the time and energy to making the more rigorous formulation, and it results in a lot of long clunky sentences and paragraphs. I’m also constantly trying to figure out the right balance between being rigorous and being engaging.

If you are in the top tier of attractiveness for any nontrivial group of women who aren’t much lower in attractiveness/wealth than you, then you might still be able to maintain decent dating success without overtly initiating.

For what it’s worth, I’m fairly certain that a given female demographic’s taste in men doesn’t correspond very much with the attractiveness of the given demographic (or, more precisely, that conventional-attractiveness is not uniform throughout a demographic defined by its taste in men).

In less abstract terms, f’rex, the set of “women who find Motley’s body type attractive” seem to vary widely in attractiveness themselves, with some being not particularly attractive at all, and some* being absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. Which can make it difficult to gauge one’s own “level,” if you’re a guy.

I’m gonna leave a real reply later, just wanted to say thanks for the link to that pickup show… hilarious and useful, I think. I just watched three episodes.

Clarisse and Hugh, what do you think, would jointly watching some of the approaches and discussing them be useful to decide on what makes approaches creepy and what not? I don’t think they’re useful to decide the effort element, as they’re really only about approching.

So Saturday night I went out with a female friend. We started out in a popular bar, and while there, I met a woman, E., who had kissed me earlier this year (meaning that she initiated the make out) in another club. We hadn’t had much contact beyond facebook since then. She was out with another female friend who was giving out the “take me home tonight”-vibe. While my friend went to the loo for a bit, E., her friend and I chatted for a while. At some point, E. mentioned several times to her friend that “Sam is a really good guy”.

It was weird. This woman clearly had been sexually interested in me, demonstrably so, she was apparently trying to sell me to her friend for some reason, and still hearing that made me feel less masculine, less attractive, somehow. The friend gave me “the look” when I said good-bye, so the sale apparently worked, and yet it still felt weird.

I didn’t have much time to reflect it at the time, because we were heading out of the bar to a club, but later it thoroughly confused me. Isn’t being a sexually attractive good guy exactly what I want to be. Sure, it is. I should be grateful that she apparently remembered me just like I want to be remembered. And there really isn’t much of a different way of saying it.

And yet the words “good guy” coming from her “selling” me to her friend, made me feel less masculine. I can’t explain it. Maybe it will change, but apparently all the nice guy stuff has, on an emotional level, more thoroughly ruined “good” masculinity terminology for me than I expected. I mean, I really, don’t want to be a non-good man. Strange.

I’m not sure how this experience fits into all of this just as I’m still not quite sure why I felt that way at the moment, and I’m still reflecting about it, but I still thought I’d mention it.

Sam:This woman clearly had been sexually interested in me, demonstrably so, she was apparently trying to sell me to her friend for some reason,…
That almost sounds like E. was thinking that despite her own interest in you you would be a better fit for her friend. Or maybe E.’s friend was feeling down and thought she need a good shag to lift her spirits. Even though her compliments about you might have made you feel less attractive and less masculine those words might be what E’s friend is attracted to. Therefore in E’s mind (and probably in her friend’s mind) she was saying just the right things to hook her friend up with you. Mind you this is just one theory (and perhaps the only reason she didn’t make a move was because you were there with another woman).

And yet the words “good guy” coming from her “selling” me to her friend, made me feel less masculine. I can’t explain it. Maybe it will change, but apparently all the nice guy stuff has, on an emotional level, more thoroughly ruined “good” masculinity terminology for me than I expected. I mean, I really, don’t want to be a non-good man. Strange.
Makes sense. You see as men for the most part we are socialized to think that we need to be “naughty” (bad boys) in order to be attractive to women. That expectation is part of what has spoiled the idea of “good” masculinity.

When I was in college I was referred to as a safe guy by some of the women I hung out with. And by safe I mean they had no problem literally falling asleep on me like they were a house cat and I was furniture, even when no one else was around. At face value it was reassuring that women trusted me (because that whole “big, scary, black man thing going on can be quite damaging to a guy’s psyche). A bit below the surface though that level of trust did kinda rub me the wrong way because I was thinking that women didn’t like soft fluffy guys (and I had the experience to back it up).

@Sam:
Interesting. I think I would react the same way. Not sure why. I have some thoughts, though.

First, there’s always the whole:
Good -> “safe” -> nonsexual
thing. I don’t feel like that’s all there is to it. But I think there’s sort of this idea that a guy that wants to have sex with you is “unsafe”. And aside from that being highly problematic in itself, it also leads to this idea that a guy who is “safe” can’t want to have sex with you. So in some cases, depending on context and intonation, calling a guy a “really good guy” is de-sexualizing. (Though not to nearly the degree that “safe” is.)

As an aside:

I think one of the things that I find really frustrating/confusing about being a guy in our culture is the safe/sexual dichotomy. The thing is, I am a really safe guy who respects people as people. And I am also a very sexual guy that wants to have sex with women (both specific women and in general). These things are not at all mutually exclusive.

But the scripts I’ve been handed, at least, don’t offer any way to express both things at once. The way that you show you are safe is by being non-sexual. So I feel perpetually stuck only being able to express one of those aspects of myself at a time. I can either be sexual, or I can be safe, but I can’t be both. And that’s really frustrating.

Increasingly, though, I’m wondering if a lot of women don’t really see things that way. I’m kind of curious what will happen if I’m more openly sexual and more openly desiring of sex.

It’s like Clarisse being jealous of my privileged male werewolf ambiguity or people feeling annoyed at being called vanilla by perverts. People want to be recognised as unique, they want their sexuality to be seen the instense and meaningful thing they perceive it as. Good is too bland an adjectives to describe relationships or sex.

I like that dichotomy. ‘Nice Guy’ is tainted, ‘Good Guy’ has the advantage that I think ‘Good’ is complimentary, but it’s still, well, a guy. Guy is one of the least arousing words in the English language, if you ask me. Conflates with ‘just one of the guys’ i.e. completely uninteresting. Step up in childishness from ‘boy,’ but insufficiently so. ‘Really good guy’ has all the problems ‘good guy’ has, except now you’re also overselling.

‘Good man’ has the complimentary term ‘good’ (i.e. this person has character, is pretty self-aware, knows about hir good&bad sides yet manages to be decent to himself & others anyway) AND the (to me, as heterosexual woman who digs adults for being people who make their own choices) complimentary term ‘man.’

Because I don’t think that accurately captures the essence of what’s going on, because following a script can hardly be called lazy even if that script requires different tasks from different users and some seem easier than others.

Yeah, this. Emphasis mine.

While we are assumed to climb the steps, women (in this script) have to convey the information we need to make the decision to climb further. Communication is rarely particularly efficient here, but it’s still communication. Do I think it’s harder to risk climbing the ladder than being confronted with an option on each step? Yes.

I mean, sure, but this assumes that women want exactly what men want in bed, which is rarely true. A woman who wants sexual satisfaction has to do the massive internal work required to figure that shit out in the face of stereotypes that, for the majority if not the vast majority of women, don’t have anything to do with what we want. And then she has to communicate that to a man who may not appreciate hearing it and probably will be freaked out if she tries to take direct control of the situation.

Approaching/pickup may be harder for men — I’m willing to believe that — but there are roles women play during that process too, in terms of communicating interest and catching attention and trying not to seem too aggressive and flirting playfully without seeming like a “slut” etc. etc. etc. (Hugh: in terms of common-ness, I would say that of the 4 behaviors on the above list, all are extremely common. I’ve had zillions of extensive conversations with female friends about getting guys to notice us.) And it’s not all that easy for us, not even for women who are way more normative than I am.

(I’m granting the probability that my experience attempting to follow the typical dating script has been way more difficult than average, but with all due respect, I think nearly all the men commenting on this thread have also had a much harder time following the dating script than average. We’re all here thinking about this partly because we have trouble with the norms. I’m not convinced that any of us can comment with a lot of accuracy on how hard the norms are for most people. I do think we can comment somewhat, though, which is why I’m still bothering.)

And as I’ve said before, the “cost” women pay for the whole relationship thing is usually measured in sex. Now, again, I am biased, and I am going partly on anecdotal experience (mine and others’) when I say this, but when I look at mainstream sexual scripts, and when I look at my own sexual experiences, vanilla heterosexual sex is just plain exploitative of women (yes! I used the word exploitative!). Obviously this is not the case for all vanilla heterosexual sex, and feminism (and other movements) have had a real and important cultural effect in pushing back against this and effectively creating requirements for men to have more consideration of the actual needs of the women they fuck. Often this just means that women are pressured into seeming to enjoy sex in a way that is convenient for men, though.

Okay, I’m about to rant, so I’ll stop for now. Also I already responded to this set of comments so I’m just retreading ….

@Motley — There are ways to initiate without initiating, if you know what I mean (which I think might be what Clarisse is saying).

Partly, yeah.

I’m trying to be nice here, (and you know I love you) but really: this is as wrong.

I love you too, Motley. If you ever decide to murder your wife and stuff her in a closet, come find me. In the meantime, I think maybe I didn’t clearly communicate that when I said sexual scripts are not awesome for women, I meant what I was saying above, about how scripts for the actual sex act aren’t great for women, which I think is part of why approaching most women is hard. If women were enjoying having sex as much as men do (generally speaking), then women would be easier to get into bed (generally speaking).

@Sam — One – is consent of women at all possible, can it be meaningful in patriarchy?

I’ve seen some more extreme radical feminists talk about how the idea of consent itself is suspicious, actually. (My favorite quotation, though I don’t recall the source: “Consent is just another way of saying you acquiesced to someone else’s desires.”) I kind of understand where they’re coming from, but consent is kind of the only way to negotiate these things in a mutual way. Absent telepathy, consent is all we have. I think that questioning consent can lead to concrete smart initiatives like some of the stuff I’ve written about (safewords, checklists, etc) but past a certain point it just makes all interactions incoherent.

I agree with your answer too.

Staying away from legal definitions in the US that I am not familiar with, I think it’s quite obvious that “intent”, in the case of a rape “intent to harm” is a nessary element of the subjective reality of the perpetrator. If it cannot reasonably assumed then I would say that we just have to live with the fact that there are, sadly, two incongruent versions of reality.

This is such dangerous ground, but I do agree with you. I just feel terrified that space will be taken to justify rape, or that space will be taken by rapists to give themselves permission to commit rape, by giving overmuch credit to the idea that these ideas about reality can too easily be incongruent. I think it is wholly possible for one person to feel violated by a person who didn’t mean to do that. I think this is an argument for encouraging slow escalation, though, and I also think it is actually pretty rare for violation to happen without toxic dynamics. I think people are usually aware when they are pushing. I think people need to stay aware of that and that saying “eh, sometimes people have different perspectives” makes it incredibly easy to erase the responsibility that we all share of staying aware and watching for cues that indicate lack of consent.

@Hugh — My intuition is that most of the time, whether the guy approaches depends more on him than on anything the woman does.

I get approached way more often when I’m in a good mood or am otherwise acting approachable. Even by street harassers. (Street harassment gets uglier when I’m giving off don’t-touch-me vibes, too. The guys who mess with me in those cases are slightly rarer, but when they do it, they make it particularly obvious that their motives are to freak me out.)

PUAs call this “stealing the frame.” Which implies that the woman’s frame is a powerful frame that they actually want to have, at least for some components.

Sure. It’s nice to be approached. My points about sexuality still stand though. If women were more motivated to approach, then we would. I approach a lot more than other women I know, partly because I’ve gotten really good at having sex that I enjoy.

This is also a component of female dating performance that I think is quite common. It seems analogous to make internalized anxiety over initiating and “creeping women out.”

I agree.

I’m also constantly trying to figure out the right balance between being rigorous and being engaging.

Yeah, I have this problem a lot. If I were as detailed and exact about everything I wrote as I wanted to be, I’d never get anything done and most readers would be bored.

Don’t worry too much about offending. We’ve all gotten offended a lot on this thread. Just do your best, and be polite when someone calls you out if you’re an accidental jerk ;)

@Sam again — And yet the words “good guy” coming from her “selling” me to her friend, made me feel less masculine. I can’t explain it. Maybe it will change, but apparently all the nice guy stuff has, on an emotional level, more thoroughly ruined “good” masculinity terminology for me than I expected. I mean, I really, don’t want to be a non-good man.

Or (just a thought) you felt less masculine because you were being somewhat objectified and the women involved were taking a leading role. Not trying to tell you what happened, just suggesting one read on the situation. The way she was behaving sounds more overt/pushy than I think a lot of mainstream women would consider to be a good idea with a guy they like.

@Cessen — Increasingly, though, I’m wondering if a lot of women don’t really see things that way. I’m kind of curious what will happen if I’m more openly sexual and more openly desiring of sex.

Men can get away with it if they’re youngish, attractive, make it jokey, and don’t do it very often. I think one of the key qualities in not being perceived as “creepy” has to do with obviously displaying an easygoing, lighthearted persona.

Aaand we have a new commenter! Hi Maartje! Wow, several new people lately. Cool.

The ‘Nice Guy’ thing is a pet peeve of mine. Most self described ‘nice guys’ or adherents of ‘ladder theory’ who whine about being stuck in the ‘friend zone’ are the opposite of nice and they don’t have any real friendships with women. They’re manipulative jerks who falsify friendship to try and lever a relationship under false pretenses. The women who they claim to be ‘friends’ with are treated more like an unsatisfactory investment that they keep pouring resources into hoping for a dividend. Which is a horrendously ugly way to approach either friendships or sexual relationships.

As an aside, I’m also not terribly complimentary about the occasional woman who keeps a ‘nice guy’ around for dishonest purposes (As an emergency dick/credit card in a jar, while not nearly as common as a lot of jerks would hold – there are certainly unethical people who keep someone on a string, knowing that they want a relationship, but not intending to pursue it – unless it becomes ‘necessary’ or ‘convenient’ – both awful reasons to pursue a relationship, and an awful reason to maintain a ‘friendship’). But that kind of user is vastly less common than the self described ‘nice guy’ cliche.

I would try to never describe someone to a third party as a ‘nice guy’ unless I was meaning it to be a criticism. ‘This is Mike, he’s a nice guy.’ is a poisoned introduction. ‘This is Mike, he’s good people.’ conveys the same information (that I know mike, and have a positive opinion of his character) without the tainted association of deceptive jerks.

yeah, I think it was a bit about the perceived desexualising nature of “good”. Probably means I still have more fucked up mental patterns with respect to my sexuality than I thought, that I’m still confused when someone I was sexual with (in this case, kissing) calls me “good” despite – or, rationally, hopefully irrespective, or even because – thereof. There apparently still is a nagging remaining feeling of “your sexuality cannot be good”, so turning this around, someone who calls me good must think of me in a non-sexual way. Yeah. Apparently I still need to do some reframing in this respect.

Maartje – the conversation didn’t take place in English, so the differentiation is not as easy because the terms involved have slightly different notions. But I doubt I’d have reacted differently to “good man”… actually, the more I think about it, the more I believe that it was really mostly about what I said in the paragraph above. And that somehow makes me angry at myself because I thought I had finally emotionally, and not just rationally, got rid of those deeply held shitty conceptualisations of my own sexuality. Apparently not entirely (yet).

Clarisse, your idea is also interesting. I seriously wouldn’t have thought about it that way. You may be right that being confused about why E. would “sell” me to her friend was a part of what I felt when hearing “good guy”.

As for the part about dating/mating effort – when I wrote what led you to say this –

“I mean, sure, but this assumes that women want exactly what men want in bed, which is rarely true.”

– I really wasn’t thinking of sex or even any interaction in which mutual sexual interest has been established. I totally agree that, from that point on, there’s much more of a mutually shared responsibility for escalation than before – even in the standard script. So, whatever I said, and I’m assuming that’s also what Hugh referred to was mainly focused on interactions before that point, the part with respect to which you say –

“Approaching/pickup may be harder for men — I’m willing to believe that —”

Which I think is something you’ve been accepting since comment #1, so I’m wondering how Hugh and you got into that misunderstanding.

“I think nearly all the men commenting on this thread have also had a much harder time following the dating script than average. We’re all here thinking about this partly because we have trouble with the norms. I’m not convinced that any of us can comment with a lot of accuracy on how hard the norms are for most people.”

That’s an interesting point. Of course, I cannot speak for anyone but me, and in the end, we’re all exchanging experiences, perceptions, and, occasionally, the expert opinion. Not the most reliable epistemological methods, but, sadly, not rarely the only ones available with respect to such a subject. We don’t *know* we’re not experiencing the same the silent majority experiences. It may just be the case that what makes some people speak up and talk about their experiences is silently born by others. I think we can say that some of the commenters differ from the majority in measurable aspects, but I’m not sure that necessarily translates into a different perception of the difficulty of approaching or being approached. I mean, I certinaly differ from the majority in a number of aspects, and I’m now not rarely asked by both female and male friends to coach them when it comes to approaching, flirting and early relationship interactions…

As for your statement about vanilla sex often being exploitative, I’m not sure with respect to what you felt the need to mention that here… it feels a bit ranty.

“If women were enjoying having sex as much as men do (generally speaking), then women would be easier to get into bed (generally speaking).”

I think there’s a lot of assumptions in that statment that aren’t necessarily true. There are certainly other criteria than mere enjoyment that are relevant in this respect – a lot of which I think we have already covered…

“I approach a lot more than other women I know, partly because I’ve gotten really good at having sex that I enjoy.”

Yes, but I reckon a lot of it is also a consequence of being sufficiently enlightened to understand that the masculinity/dominance tests inherent in the common script is not a good standard for judging a man and you’re also self-aware enough to know that a man who’s cool with your hacking the script is probably a better match than someone who is not. You’re not afraid of scarcity of potential partners, so your approach is probably a much better screening mechanism – for you. I’m not sure the same would be true for all women. But I’d agree that a lot may benefit from it (incidentally, I think that’s close to what Hugh is arguing with respect to “women who would benefit from being less passive”).

As for the consent comment (cf feministe-post)

“I think people need to stay aware of that and that saying “eh, sometimes people have different perspectives” makes it incredibly easy to erase the responsibility that we all share of staying aware and watching for cues that indicate lack of consent.”

Yes, that it true. But it also implies a responsibility to communicate lack of consent in a perceptible manner.

I think this is an interesting comment regarding what Clarisse was saying about women enjoying sex as well as about nice guys:

What’s so hot about Ewan MacGregor is that understated nice guy thing. He reminds you of the guys that were in the background when you were young, the ones you didn’t notice until the buff self centred ones you dated once or twice engaged in some mortifying jock behaviour, like teasing a chubby girl or groping your best friend.

Ewan reminds you of the guy that cheered you up by taking you to his uncle’s farm and teaching you to ride a horse, or playing Dungeons and Dragons with you for the first time. He’s like the quiet guy with some sexy talent like ballet, that left the chest-pounding jocks in the dust.

Ewan reminds you of the sensitive guy that cheered you up after you got dumped for the first time, with a gift neither you nor your first guy ever had a clue about. Ewan reminds you of the first guy that ever demonstrated what the male tongue is really for.

Ewan reminds you of the sensitive guy that cheered you up after you got dumped for the first time, with a gift neither you nor your first guy ever had a clue about.

… the guy you didn’t really notice, but would find attractive if he was a celebrity.

This is the principle that if a guy can rack up enough points in the category of masculinity/status/fame, he can “burn” those points in the category of femininity/altruism/agreeableness/sensitivity. And for some women, the combination of those two categories of traits actually is more attractive than mere hypermasculinity. The hierarchy could look something like this:
Badboy with a tender side > badboy >>>>>> tender guy.

Here’s how the layering could look:

1. Basic level of agreeableness and altruism; enough to not come across as a threat. You are a “good guy.” Any more than a very base amount of these traits puts you in the friend zone unless you have the next layer:

2. Masculinity, status, fame, or a stereotypically sexy appearance or interests (e.g. you play in a band). These traits are the primary engines of attraction. But once you have a certain level of them, women suddenly split on their preferences. One subset of women will want you to have even more traits in this layer. The other subset of women will prefer that you add traits from the next layer:

3. Now we are back to the agreeableness, altruism, and sensitivity category. With the masculinity layer satisfied, a pretty decent subset of women will now tolerate a nontrivial amount of these traits, which will make you even more attractive, particularly as a long-term mate. But you can’t let the agreeableness/altruism/sensitivity axis dominate her perception of your masculinity, or you are back to layer 1.

This model lets us explain why some women claim to like “nice guys,” and reconcile it with the claim of many men that they are overlooked as “nice guys.” The men’s claim makes sense if they are getting stuck on layer 1. The claim by these women make sense if you translate it to the jump between layers 2 and 3: “out of the masculine, high status, or famous guys that register on my sexual radar, I prefer the ones that also have agreeableness, altruism, or sensitivity.”

Furthermore, this model explains why many women object to the claim that “nice guys finish last”: it implies that they don’t have criteria for layer 1, when actually they do.

Men can get away with it if they’re youngish, attractive, make it jokey, and don’t do it very often.

Yeah. The thing that’s annoying is that these qualifications are precisely part of the trap that I’m frustrated by. Openly sexual guy = not safe. But if you only sort-of-kind-of mention it jokingly on occasion, and you’re attractive, then it’s okay (although even in those instances you might make people feel temporarily unsafe). And I think it kind of comes back to this idea that guys need to have their sexuality on a leash, because it’s “dangerous” or toxic or whatever. So if a guy is openly sexual, that means he hasn’t properly leashed his sexuality.

But I remain curious what would happen if I’m just more openly sexual. The thing is, I’ve never actually tried it. I always assumed bad things would happen. But maybe they won’t. Maybe the kind of behavior I’m thinking of won’t actually make people feel unsafe, at least not after they get to know me. So… I think I’m going to try this. See what actually happens.

In reality I’ll probably fail to be nearly as open as I’m thinking, given my issues. So maybe a reasonable balance will be struck anyway.

I’m granting the probability that my experience attempting to follow the typical dating script has been way more difficult than average, but with all due respect, I think nearly all the men commenting on this thread have also had a much harder time following the dating script than average.

I’m not really sure what I think of this. I suspect that both the subsets of people that do and do not deal well with the scripts are substantial, so I’m not sure how useful it is to talk about the average person. Maybe the specific reasons we have difficulty are abnormal? But I’m not convinced.

Now, again, I am biased, and I am going partly on anecdotal experience (mine and others’) when I say this, but when I look at mainstream sexual scripts, and when I look at my own sexual experiences, vanilla heterosexual sex is just plain exploitative of women (yes! I used the word exploitative!). Obviously this is not the case for all vanilla heterosexual sex, and feminism (and other movements) have had a real and important cultural effect in pushing back against this and effectively creating requirements for men to have more consideration of the actual needs of the women they fuck.

Having read your latest post, this makes a lot of sense to me.

It also reminds me of something. Not sure exactly how it relates, but it seems intuitively relevant to me:

One of my past sexual partners literally would not do anything in bed unless I asked her to. And before jumping to conclusions, let me state that I seriously went above-and-beyond to make it clear to her that there was no pressure, and that she didn’t have to do anything that she didn’t want to. I did that all the time, actually, because throughout the relationship her behavior never changed, and it always made me feel like I was exploiting her. So I went to great lengths to try to make sure that this was actually what she wanted. And she always said it was.

But for example, I don’t think she ever once unzipped my pants without me first asking her to. You can substitute “unzipped my pants” with any other act, and that pretty much describes what it was like.

In that same relationship I also went to great lengths to try to make sure she was getting what she wanted out of the sex. But she gave me very little feedback about that, too, even when I asked explicitly.

It was an extremely unnerving sexual relationship for me. From a consent standpoint, from a feeling desired standpoint, and from a “is she satisfied with this” standpoint.

And I’m sure some of this (though I doubt all of it, given the extreme nature of it) had to do with sexual scripts that she had picked up on.

I’m not really sure what I think of this. I suspect that both the subsets of people that do and do not deal well with the scripts are substantial, so I’m not sure how useful it is to talk about the average person. Maybe the specific reasons we have difficulty are abnormal? But I’m not convinced.

Is referencing all of us, including you. I have a suspicion that all of us are representative (to greater or lesser degrees) of subsets of the population. I don’t have data (other than anecdotes of other people I know) to back that up, of course. So, grain of salt and all that.

It would be really funny if we’re all basically super-unique, and generalizing to a supposed subset of the population that doesn’t actually exist.

Hugh: … the guy you didn’t really notice, but would find attractive if he was a celebrity.

I thought that “gift” was oral sex, being able to make a woman orgasm.

I also thought she was also commenting on the kind of man that MacGregor seems to be in contrast to Mark Wahlberg, so the celebrity thing sort of cancels out anyway.

This is the principle that if a guy can rack up enough points in the category of masculinity/status/fame, he can “burn” those points in the category of femininity/altruism/agreeableness/sensitivity.

I think her point was that the visible, overt masculinity of some early boyfriends may be superficially attractive but that the less noticeable nice guys that followed were actually better boyfriends.

I guess I do get what you’re saying, although I think it can be parsed in more gendery terms for more accuracy. Heterosexual women are fundamentally attracted to men as a sex and their performance of masculinity. Women like Clarisse and Xena want that performance to be non-oppressive, supportive, etc., while masculinity is often constructed as aggressive, domineering, etc. Women aren’t attracted to men who fail to perform a kind of masculinity successfully, regardless of how supportive they are, they’re attracted to but often frustrated by many performances of masculinity, and greatly enjoying the guys like MacGregor who can apparently perform this clitoris-friendly masculinity.

Perhaps the difference is that it’s a different masculinity in kind rather than balancing some kind of monolithic masculinity with non-masculine traits.

“[Y]ou can’t let the agreeableness/altruism/sensitivity axis dominate her perception of your masculinity, or you are back to [LJBF].”

“Perhaps the difference is that it’s a different masculinity in kind rather than balancing some kind of monolithic masculinity with non-masculine traits.”

May I say that we seem to be closing in on Clarriss’s original quesion? I would like to add the element of “performative” masculinity, here, although I’m not sure if that’s already what you had in mind with “a different masculinity in kind”, Machina.

Need to think about this more.

You should totally trademark this, though, or I’m gonna put it on t-shirts and become rich and famous ;)

I think that article definitely has truth in it, though. Although for me it’s a lot more to do with a range traits rather than just with physical attractiveness. If a woman is more intelligent than me, for example, I assume she won’t want me because I’m less intelligent than her. Ditto for talent, physical attractiveness, got-your-life-together-ness, adventurousness, etc.

Intelligence and got-your-life-together-ness are probably the most important factors for me in assuming that someone is out of my league/won’t want me. Even if a woman is less physically attractive than me, if she’s clearly more intelligent than me I write her off. Not because I don’t want her, but because I assume that I won’t meet her criteria and that she won’t want me.

It’s kind of frustrating because frankly I would love to have a partner that is more intelligent than me. That would be awesome.

Heh. Aww, you only say that ’cause I edited a lot out of that sentence before I posted it… :p
(Sloppily, though, and it shows. But nobody probably needed to know what that was as wrong as, anyway.)

Anyway, back on topic (-ish?), this:

On a related note: an argument I recently made in some comments over on Feminist Critics is that if stereotypical sexual scripts worked better for women, then men wouldn’t have to work so hard to get women out on dates.

…doesn’t seem to look much like

that when I said sexual scripts are not awesome for women, I meant what I was saying above, about how scripts for the actual sex act aren’t great for women, which I think is part of why approaching most women is hard. If women were enjoying having sex as much as men do (generally speaking), then women would be easier to get into bed (generally speaking).

My point was mostly that (to briefly retread some old ground) the “stereotypical sexual script” is framed as a transaction, with the actual sex being what the man gets out of it, and all the rest being what the woman gets out of it. I don’t actually expect that women enjoying sex more would induce them to extract fewer favors in exchange for it. Perhaps I’m being overly cynical about human nature (me? Surely not!) but one thing of which I am certain is that people in superior bargaining positions do not often settle for less than they’ve been raised to expect.

Getting from the living room into the bedroom might be easier, sure (though it’d be harder for women; if this doesn’t seem like a problem to you, then imagine for a moment an average woman who wanted to have sex with Sam). But going from “stranger” to “second date” would not, I expect, get any easier–and that’s the part where the balance most favors women, and it’s the part that women most control, so I wouldn’t expect that to change any time soon. Barring some mass die-out of males, of course.

And this wasn’t at me, but

…in terms of communicating interest and catching attention and trying not to seem too aggressive and flirting playfully without seeming like a “slut” etc. etc. etc.

I do a fair amount of this stuff too, and when people know about this (and are being generous) they describe it, at best, as “dishonest manipulation” and “creepy.”*
Are you now asking that women receive some kind of “credit” for manipulating people?

(*Okay, some people describe it as “smooth” or “gifted” or even, once, “holy good goddam’ fuckin’ impressive,” but I’m here excluding those, for reasons you might be happier not knowing.)

If you ever decide to murder your wife and stuff her in a closet, come find me.

Heh. Not too likely, but not entirely implausible. But from what you said earlier about being fond of androgyny, I don’t think I’m your type (to put it very mildly).

I have a suspicion that all of us are representative (to greater or lesser degrees) of subsets of the population. I don’t have data (other than anecdotes of other people I know) to back that up, of course. So, grain of salt and all that.

Heh. If you’re collecting statistics, pencil me in for a solid 1% (though I suspect it’s closer to two percent, but probably not as high as three).

But evidence so far seems to suggest that I’ve got a pretty firm grasp (hah!) on the “average”* person’s psychology.

(*If we pretend for a moment that there is such a thing as an average person, instead of something more like a bell curve.)

Sam, May I say that we seem to be closing in on Clarriss’s original quesion? I would like to add the element of “performative” masculinity, here, although I’m not sure if that’s already what you had in mind with “a different masculinity in kind”, Machina.

Yeah, definitely.

I think it’s homologous to the way that women passively convey interest that Clarisse has been talking about.

You should totally trademark this, though, or I’m gonna put it on t-shirts and become rich and famous ;)

Ha, you know I thought after posting that that a t-shirt with “Clitoris Friendly” on it would pretty fun.

I think on another level though, there’s been a sex-positive feminist movement for a few decades where women have defended their decisions to shave their legs, suck cock, strip or fuck for money, and men have been, well, agreeing that women should be able to shave their legs, suck cock, etc. Which is only half the story.

@Scootah — The ‘Nice Guy’ thing is a pet peeve of mine. Most self described ‘nice guys’ or adherents of ‘ladder theory’ who whine about being stuck in the ‘friend zone’ are the opposite of nice and they don’t have any real friendships with women.

How did you develop this theory about Nice Guys? I’m curious because you’re echoing a lot of what the feminist blogosphere says about Nice Guys — we even have a pet phrase for them: “Nice Guys ™”. But I don’t get the impression that you’re into that blogosphere as much as, say, I am. I could be wrong.

@Sam — As for your statement about vanilla sex often being exploitative, I’m not sure with respect to what you felt the need to mention that here… it feels a bit ranty.

Yeah, it was. Sorry.

You’re not afraid of scarcity of potential partners, so your approach is probably a much better screening mechanism – for you.

Yeah. I’m interested (and scared) to see what’s going to happen to me as I get older. Once I get old enough to be invisible or even auto-unattractive, I suspect that my approach dynamics will have to change. I wish there were PUA curricula for older women.

@Hugh — … the guy you didn’t really notice, but would find attractive if he was a celebrity.

Well, hold on, is that what she’s saying? Or is she just saying that you don’t notice those guys initially but once they surprise you (like with a thoughtful gift or with oral sex … heh), you notice them?

(Aha, now that I’ve gotten to machina’s comment, I agree with a lot of what he says)

But you can’t let the agreeableness/altruism/sensitivity axis dominate her perception of your masculinity, or you are back to layer 1.

I don’t know about this either. I mean, you know more about picking women up than I do, but still …. It seems to me that the problem is less that the AAS axis can’t dominate her perceptions, and more that you can’t appear to have zero (or a very low amount) of the masculinity layer.

@Cessen — But for example, I don’t think she ever once unzipped my pants without me first asking her to. You can substitute “unzipped my pants” with any other act, and that pretty much describes what it was like. … It was an extremely unnerving sexual relationship for me. From a consent standpoint, from a feeling desired standpoint, and from a “is she satisfied with this” standpoint.

Huh. This reminds me of some communication thoughts I had recently — I had a series of encounters in which the guy was a real tease (it was very hot) and it took me a while to realize that in order to get him to actually have sexual intercourse with me, I had to explicitly ask. But it also took me a while to ask because I didn’t want him to feel pressured (and there were some indicators that he might).

Ultimately when I did ask, it was after we’d already hooked up a couple times, and (going back to our previous discussions of how to ask) I didn’t actually ask: I think I just said something like “I’m trying to figure out how to convince you to have sex with me right now.”

If I’d asked explicitly (“would you like to do something sexual now?”) I’m not sure it would have worked as well. On the other hand, if I’d said “I’m trying to convince you …” sooner, I think he might have felt anxiety about it. I definitely had to time that one, and in retrospect I can see that it was a somewhat difficult communication task.

I’m not sure what my overall point is, except that I think that if I felt more stigma around sex or cared less about open communication, I probably would have skipped the entire task and simply dumped the responsibility for figuring out when to have intercourse in his lap. Another example for our example pile.

It’s kind of frustrating because frankly I would love to have a partner that is more intelligent than me. That would be awesome.

Me too. This is complicated by the fact that seeming too smart scares a lot of people off, including smart guys. I realize occasionally that to some extent I seem to automatically make myself appear dumber than I am, and every time I notice this, it makes me really angry. I hate the fact that society is still warping me notwithstanding the fact that I’m aware of it. Recently a guy told a mutual friend that he thinks I play at being dumb, and I got way more upset than the comment deserved.

Fortunately there are a lot of smart guys who are cool talking to a smart woman, and like Sam said, I’m not too concerned about scarcity at the moment, so I’m not worrying too much. It’s clear that there’s still an effect though, whether I’m worrying a lot or not.

@Motley — I don’t actually expect that women enjoying sex more would induce them to extract fewer favors in exchange for it. Perhaps I’m being overly cynical about human nature (me? Surely not!) but one thing of which I am certain is that people in superior bargaining positions do not often settle for less than they’ve been raised to expect.

The second part is a good point, but I’m not sure I agree with its relation to the first part ….

If the world stays the same as it is now and not very many women are having mind-blowingly awesome sex, then the women who are having mind-blowingly awesome sex will still have a superior bargaining position due to the fact that most women aren’t nearly as inclined to do it as men. But if most women were having mind-blowingly awesome sex, then it seems to me that the balance would have to shift at least somewhat. The shift might take a while to happen, but I think that it would have to. Simply because if women start wanting the sex itself more, then we are no longer in a superior bargaining position while exchanging the sex for something else, right?

Are you now asking that women receive some kind of “credit” for manipulating people?

I get pretty triggered around the word manipulate. Refer to previous thread.

@machina — I think on another level though, there’s been a sex-positive feminist movement for a few decades where women have defended their decisions to shave their legs, suck cock, strip or fuck for money, and men have been, well, agreeing that women should be able to shave their legs, suck cock, etc. Which is only half the story.

Right. Which is why I still make a lot of space and have a lot of respect for radfem critiques. I identify way more with sex+, obviously, but there is something scary and problematic about how so many people interpret sex+ specifically to mean that women get to do things that serve men sexually without it being problematic.

I think you’ll be doing just fine, should you still be “on the market” at that point. Someone recently pointed out to me that men, also younger men, appreciate older women because of their increased ability to communicate about these matters. You’re already a star communicator, and you’re not only passively relying on your looks now. So I don’t think it’s gonig to be difficult at all for you. But I suppose it *can* be a challenge for women who only relied on their looks and at some point realize they’re 43 and don’t look like they’re 23 anymore. I have one woman in mind, a friend of a female friend, whom I met a couple of months ago. She was still giving out an Icequeen vibe, turning down everyone who tried to talk to her, because she somehow (as her friend told me) still thought she could get away with what she could get away with until she turned, say, 38. She mirrored in every reaction with any guy what she felt about herself. And just like with guys who are socially not too skilled and have self-confidence issues, that’s going to show in the “results”.

“Well, hold on, is that what she’s saying? Or is she just saying that you don’t notice those guys initially but once they surprise you (like with a thoughtful gift or with oral sex … heh), you notice them?”

Yeah well… to get to the oral sex surprise part, he already needs to have the masculinity part down to a significant degree. I think we’ve been over this before, and it comes down to, I think, a quote in this post at the f-word (which I already linked to before)

“It we like the bad boy, then we can’t like the nice boy. However, while the old adage that “nice guys finish last” has been dusted off and thrust back into the gender politics circuit, is it not true that while us ladies may not want a kind thoughtful man as a shag-buddy or a one-night stand, we are more likely to want to settle down and build a life with them? Is it not true that while the patriarchal womaniser may get more action, the nice guy gets consistency and quality and love, and so is the latter not in a better position? … While The Daily Male uses this information to infer nice guys may as well give up and start treating women as cock socks in order to get what they want, nice guys certainly do not finish last. Surely we women are allowed to indulge our sexual attractions towards men we may not necessarily like as people just to get a gratifying lay – so why is it that this has to be seen as having bigger implications than necessary? Nice guys, don’t use this as justification to launch a deceitful and downright spiteful sexual tirade against us, just be patient and give us space!”

And once again the difference has been exposed: women have more options. Men can decide to be one or the other and look for women who like that pattern, while women are free to choose from both. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that per se, but it does, again demonstrate the importance of the relative scarcity factor for dating/mating strategies. Maybe the time factor you brought up above is a balancing element, but as most people are dating/mating before the menopausal “power shift” and are still looking for a long-term monogamous relationship I’m not *that* sure about that.

But I wonder if the “clitoris friendly” masculinity mentioned by machina could not be a model offering both options for men as well – not as a mere player, but as an ethical “slut”. But if it exists – and I think it does – then it’s truly a walk on a tightrope, identity and performance-wise. And we still haven’t really filled the notion with a lot of specific content, except for the general idea that displays of dominance need to be balanced by performing on the “AAS axis” (I still think true altruism *IS* a sign of strength, not weakness), and vice versa.

Case in point – went for a beer with a female friend (a close friend’s girlfriend) earlier tonight who’s now in a distance relationship and would like to exchange rings with him, but doesn’t want to ask… so I made a suggestion about how to do that, and she totally liked it and asked me “are you gay?”, knowing full well that I am not. Because having a romantic idea isn’t masculine, and thus, apparently, gay. Really made me angry for a second. Not that I’m trying to be masculine around her, but still, next time we meet we’re now going to see a ball game, not a poetry slam.

As for the communication story – thanks for noting that even you found explicitly asking difficult. And I think it is also indicative of how rare female initiation – verbal or otherwise – is…

As for intelligent partners. OH YEAH. Brains are both the biggest aphrodisiac and the perceived biggest obstacle. The former, because having a real meeting of body *AND* mind can only happen if there is a mind (of course, the desired amount of mind present will vary from person to person), the latter because, usually, more mind implies a tendency to overthink things yet much less often the ability to communicate about this tendency.

But I’d say playing dumb is a bit more complicated – I think its appropriateness depends on what you mean by it. I don’t feel the need (anymore) to tell I just met how I know more about this or that or that they aren’t entitled to an opinion because they didn’t read x,y, and z. I once had a crush on an American student in my hall of residence, and I gave her a story to read when she was ill. She asked me who the author was (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html) and her not knowing it totally turned me off… I never got to know her because I didn’t even dumb down a little to see what else she was about besides not being into classic American literature. I would hope that I’d be given that chance should I need it. So I’ve changed my approach on that aspect.

In addition to that, not rarely “dumbing down” seems like a category mistake. I’m always trying to find something interesting in people. And maybe they believe they need to dumb down for me when I feel I need to dumb down for them. And all there was two people talking past each other…

“Simply because if women start wanting the sex itself more, then we are no longer in a superior bargaining position while exchanging the sex for something else, right?”

Yeah, sure. But this is really going back to the Foster-Wallace thing. We see there is a value difference and that value difference creates a price. Question: why is there a value difference? Answer: part of it is biological, part of it is cultural. Question: can we do something about it? Answer: possibly, at least with respect to the cultural element, should the cultural layer not be necessary consequence of the biological aspect, which is unlikely, by raising the socially attributed value of male sexuality relative to female sexuality (thereby giving men more choice among women, increasing their ability to say “no” and be more selective than they are willing to be now) and by decreasing the socially attributed value of female sexuality (thereby releaving women from the feeling of giving it up when they have sex and thus allow them to engage in it and enjoy it more freely) – in short, by removing the double binds and creating a sex positive/pleasure positive cultural environment. To be honest, after reading more Foucault recently, I’m more sceptical about this being a realistical social option than I was after reading Foster-Wallace, but there’s still a possibility.

“I identify way more with sex+, obviously, but there is something scary and problematic about how so many people interpret sex+ specifically to mean that women get to do things that serve men sexually without it being problematic.”

I interpreted machina’s statement to refer to men not having had that kind of debate about themselves and their sexual identity (kind of what we’re doing here), but your interpretation is also interesting. But since this seems to be in line with what you mentioned above about “exploitation”, I’m now getting more interested in what makes you bring this kind of thing up now. This really seems like a new aspect to your thinking – at least like something I’ve never really noticed so far.

Walter Mischel conducted experiments at Stanford University throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s in which he and his researchers offered a bargain to children.

The kids sat at a table in front of a bell and some treats. They could pick a pretzel, a cookie or a giant marshmallow. They told the little boys and girls they could either eat the treat right away or wait a few minutes. If they waited, they would double their payoff and get two treats. If they couldn’t wait, they had to ring the bell after which the researcher would end the experiment.

Some made no attempt at self-control and just ate right away. Others stared intensely at the object of their desire until they gave in to temptation. Many writhed in agony, twisting their hands and feet while looking away. Some made silly noises.

In the end, a third couldn’t resist.

Also

we are more likely to want to settle down and build a life with them?

I’m not sure that the notion of settling down and building a life with a nice guy is logically consistent with the sexual preference for bad boys, or practically viable outside of a Rom Com of some kind.

In terms of logical consistency, I can’t imagine why anyone would be likely to sexually pursue group A, but would plan to form a long running sexual relationship going forward with group B, where genitals are the only listed commonality between the groups. Surely that’s a path that leads to sexual dissatisfaction and long term discontent? It just seems like a really bad idea.

And my observation is that while some women may indeed receive great satisfaction from the sitcom cliche of turning a sexually desirable bad boy into nice guy a and great dad who despite having a dramatic personality change is still sexual desirable, it doesn’t actually work terribly often and it doesn’t lead to good relationships that survive the test of time.

I think most ‘nice guys’ are guys who are lacking a model for manhood. They are guys who bought into Tom Hanks movies and advice written by women for publication in Cleo. The Nice Guy thing tells us that by being a patient, supportive friend – we’ll find consistency, quality and love.

The problem is most guys who try to be ‘nice guys’ as a path to sex and hopefully love, find out that they’ve just removed themselves from the sexual radar of the women they’re interested in. They’ve set themselves up as asexual, or some other less than desirable arch type. They’re not visible as a potential focus for lust – just for reliability and support.

Those guys aren’t for the most part looking for friendship however. They aren’t getting what they want or need from being a reliable and supportive friend. All they get is disappointment and bitterness as the focus of their affections moves on to someone who is on their sexual radar.

Or is she just saying that you don’t notice those guys initially but once they surprise you (like with a thoughtful gift or with oral sex … heh), you notice them?

Tasteless and horrible joke: “It’s not rape if you yell ‘suprise sex!’ first.”

Point: the chance to give oral sex ain’t happening until after she notices me. And I get the impression that thoughtful gifts without more overt come-ons = Nice Guy(tm)

So… hooray.

And I’ve been thinking: frankly, if the stuff you’re talking about in terms of the typical man’s behavior in bed really is typical, then apparently I must be amazing in bed by comparison. I rarely get to demonstrate that, though.

(I’m highly skeptical that I’m actually amazing in bed.)

But if most women were having mind-blowingly awesome sex, then it seems to me that the balance would have to shift at least somewhat.

Mainly because most guys are having nothing approaching mind-blowing sex to begin with.

I mean, maybe that’s just me projecting. But I cannot fathom most guys really being satisfied with sex on a pleasure/fulfillment level given our cultures tropes about sexuality and sexual roles. I’m willing to concede that men may well on average be getting a better experience out of it than women. But that doesn’t mean that sex is actually good for most guys.

All other things being equal, if most women were having mind-blowing sex (or even just good sex), they would be way ahead of most guys.

I think most ‘nice guys’ are guys who are lacking a model for manhood.

For me a lot of it is that the only models of manhood I’ve seen clash pretty heavily with my own identity. To the point, in fact, that I intuitively see “masculinity” as being in conflict with me, and as being a harmful trap for me. I’ve only ever been harmed by enforcement of masculine norms, for example.

On a gut level, the idea that I have to perform masculinity to be attractive is just… extremely nasty to me. It reeks of ‘giving in’ to all of the harmful shit I experienced in the past.

(Having said that, there are aspects of masculinity that I consider positive. But they’re traits that I feel should be expected/encouraged in everyone, not just men.)

@Cessen – I don’t mean to promote models for masculinity as being the beer swilling, fly fishing, homophobic frat boy or anything – or even as being necessary.

I just think that most of the self described nice guys are guys who are trying to be masculine with no idea how to go about it. They’ve based their idea of what the male role in a heterosexual relationship formation is on Hollywood lies and bad advice and have no idea why it isn’t working for them.

That kind of hapless ignorance is a very different thing from assessing typical masculinity and finding it inappropriate for you. I spent a long time self describing as gender ambivalent, in that while I was biologically male – most males I knew struggled with concepts more complicated than door knobs and weren’t a group that I particularly wanted to identify myself with.

Enough time has passed since then that my idea of what a man is has shifted to be something that I’m much more comfortable identifying myself as. But that’s also because I’m a little more self assured (narcissistic and self obsessed?) and able to reconcile the idea that most of the people who self define as men, aren’t terribly good at being men, and I might just be better at it than they are.

I just think that most of the self described nice guys are guys who are trying to be masculine with no idea how to go about it. They’ve based their idea of what the male role in a heterosexual relationship formation is on Hollywood lies and bad advice and have no idea why it isn’t working for them.

If you consider that my boyfriend is a nice guy (not TM), then he’s not unmasculine, he’s just different. He thinks that getting to know someone *before things get serious* is more important than to ‘fake stuff until he can tell’ and then decide he can jauge someone.

Basically he won’t kiss or have sex, with the intent of having a relationship, with the first person – not before he knows if there’s some personal compatibility. And that takes weeks, maybe months, to assess. Not one evening at the bar or club.

I see it the same way, also. I think it’s one of the things that make us a good fit.

That kind of hapless ignorance is a very different thing from assessing typical masculinity and finding it inappropriate for you.

Nah, that would be more of the process *I went through in my youth than a process he did. I assessed typical masculinity and came up with a “WTF? Why do people even do this, let alone like doing it?”.

I did this from a standpoint where nothing is admitted to be better. The status quo being “nothing is proven to be beneficial until assessed”. Most people seem to start from the standpoint that status quo is king, and that status quo is whatever the social norms are – only norms very negatively affecting them are even considered open to discussion, if at all.

I lack common sense, and am proud of it, since it forces me to think outside the box, like all the time. I don’t assume some things are a priori true/better.

So I didn’t assume that my possessing a penis forced me to want or even like to perform masculinity. I experienced pressure from people to do it, to identify as male, and to perform masculinity – but I never figured it was “the natural thing to do”, unless it came naturally to the individual (not really verifiable, though if you feel good about doing it, and not forced, it’s a good sign), which it didn’t in my case.

Eventually figured that I was right all along, and that possessing a penis didn’t force me to even “live as a male” (which is different from ‘living as a man’, to me) – that I could transition and change the shape of my body to better approximate the female form, and live as something as close to female as technology allows. If technology hadn’t allowed this, I’d probably been one of those male suicide statistics nowadays, hopefully reborn as female.

The fact that I’m also moderately feminine is icing on the cake, it makes being accepted easier, but it’s nowhere near my motivation for the change. I also reject a lot of feminine norms as bullshit.

The male form is simply something I cannot stand to inhabit, however atypical I may have looked (short, small frame, baby face, almost no body hair, very little facial hair, androgynous voice). On top, I also find most norms associated with it to be extremely toxic, and amazed men can stand them.

This might be standpoint missing from women in general. If cissexual women were treated as ‘one of the guys’ (with all the norms it entails, not necessarily being accepted), for months or years, in continuous, they might* understand my POV.

Yeah, the present bias thing is probably a big part of why that explanation is always brought up by women. It’s also a good reason to assume that men who are better at dealing with delayed gratification will have an easier time believing that argument when made by women.

“In terms of logical consistency, I can’t imagine why anyone would be likely to sexually pursue group A, but would plan to form a long running sexual relationship going forward with group B, where genitals are the only listed commonality between the groups. Surely that’s a path that leads to sexual dissatisfaction and long term discontent? It just seems like a really bad idea.”

Not so sure. Have you ever played “murder marry shag” in a bar? Almost everyone, women as men, will choose the person they find most attractive for a one night stand, and the second most attractive person, the one that looks more stable, realiable, less adventurous, as the person to marry. Almost everyone. So there are other elements besides compatible genitals that influence people’s preferences with respect to shorter- and longer-term relationships.

And I believe it has long been established that women do exhibit a revealed preference for stability in the longterm relationship, with a present bias for a badboy/different genes during the fertile days. Which, prior to DNA analysis, biologically gave women a reasonable amount of discretion in that respect, that was balanced with cultural provisions limiting their sexuality.

You may be interested in browsing the the “followup” thread with an in-page search for “nice guy”, we’ve looked at a couple of aspects – Motley, humbition especially, if I remember correctly, that thread needs to be broken down and summarized at some point. With respect to the bad boy thing, I’ve said the following there –

“Generalizing, I think both women and men, although I suppose women more so than men, are attracted to expressions of confidence. I think the dark triad personality traits help with displays of confidence. Machiavellism probably displays social control and sociopathy guarantees that relationships (with others) will not become a prohibitive cost factor in pursuing other interests. If one can put oneself in a state of believing a dark triad person believes in “you and me, baby, against the rest of the world”, that *this* one relation is different from all others, I think dark triad traits *can* very well be attractive as such.”

And, with respect to options and choice, I’d also like to mention that the term *nice girl* almost never comes up, which probably implies that women do not face some kind of implied, if only perceived, strategic trade-off between two sexual strategies.

“I just think that most of the self described nice guys are guys who are trying to be masculine with no idea how to go about it. They’ve based their idea of what the male role in a heterosexual relationship formation is on Hollywood lies and bad advice and have no idea why it isn’t working for them.”

Yeah, we’re trying to identify the (theoretical) sweet spot here. I like the term “clitoris friendly masculinity”. But as I said in my reply to Clarisse above, we’re not much closer to an answer of her original question, except that we’ve established that the sweet spot requires some kind of performance in either one or the other direction, depending on where one is coming from.

I swore to myself that I would become involved in no comment threads today, so I will give myself 5 minutes!

Firstly, I love this recent Feminist Critics comment from typhonblue:To all this I say: ‘Women, stop being jealous of men’s so-called enjoyment of sex because there is a distinct possibility they are not enjoying it any more then you are.”

Which I think is brilliant.

Sam, okay, yeah. It makes sense that my views on this seem slightly incoherent when I’m getting triggered, I think. In my remaining 3 minutes, I think I can maybe break it down like this?

# There are definitely many gross stereotypes of male sexuality! I accept this and think it is not at all awesome. I think it’s really unfortunate that all male sexuality all the time is stereotyped as exploitative.

# However, I also think that the mainstream scripts that rule how most of us view sexuality do for the most part favor a certain type of male sexuality, and that this type of male sexuality is fairly exploitative of women. This is bad for almost all women, for men who aren’t normative, and for men who are normative but might be able to get to something even awesomer if they thought outside the script more.

# also I, personally, am much more likely to be mad about male sexuality than accepting of it when I’ve been (a) going through sources on female anorgasmia, (b) thinking about my younger sexual experiences or (c) have been debating over at Feminist Critics and am therefore getting wildly triggered every 5 minutes. I do try to control this effect, but it’s hard!

Also, I love the “clitoris-friendly masculinity” t-shirt. I’ve been thinking forever that I should make a line of t-shirts and if/when I do, I want to steal that slogan.

(I also want a shirt that says “If I had a cock, I would smack the bitch around.” As one of my male friends said when I mentioned this: “That shirt would be funny on a woman, and a different kind of funny on a guy. I wouldn’t wear it.”)

I think her point was that the visible, overt masculinity of some early boyfriends may be superficially attractive but that the less noticeable nice guys that followed were actually better boyfriends.

Yeah, she noticed them… eventually.

Clarisse said:

I don’t know about this either. I mean, you know more about picking women up than I do, but still …. It seems to me that the problem is less that the AAS axis can’t dominate her perceptions, and more that you can’t appear to have zero (or a very low amount) of the masculinity layer.

Well, for every woman, there is going to be an optimal ratio of perceived masculine traits and perceived agreeableness/altruism/sensitivity. My hypothesis is that for young mainstream straight women, the ratio of the former to the latter needs be at least 1:1. Of course, different women have different ways of measuring these traits, which is why her perception of those traits matters.

Well, hold on, is that what she’s saying? Or is she just saying that you don’t notice those guys initially but once they surprise you (like with a thoughtful gift or with oral sex … heh), you notice them?

It would be a funny situation to not notice someone until they are giving you oral sex… Oh hi down there!

As Sam and Cessen point out, something needs to happen before she notices him enough for oral sex to occur. Either he needs to figure out some sort of masculinity, or she needs to get older. In that example, it took the woman time to even go on dates with “nice guys,” and she admits they were in the background when she was young. How long did it take? Age 21? 25? 29?

If we say that dating starts at 14 (which is a late estimate), then that means that it took 7, 11, or 15 years to notice these guys. Meanwhile, they languish watching women and badboys have a big party that they aren’t invited to (PUAs call this the “secret society”).

Even if we tart counting at age 18, that’s still 3+ years they have to sit out. Being locked out of the dating world during your youth has a cascade of psychologically damaging effects. The F-Word article is unlikely to make these guys feel better:

Is it not true that while the patriarchal womaniser may get more action, the nice guy gets consistency and quality and love, and so is the latter not in a better position?

It could be the better position if the timeframe was the same. But a 3-15 year waiting period for women to switch over to long-term mating tendencies is a long time. Guys who are waiting can easily develop messed up and misogynistic attitudes towards women, and some guys try to “kill off” their agreeable, altruistic, and sensitive sides (leading to quotes like “there used to be a nice guy inside, but you killed him”).

The other complex that the locked-out guys get is that when they finally get on women’s radars, they may not be ready to settle down. Which is understandable, because they haven’t been able to spend their teens and twenties dating around like everyone else.

If the author thinks that badboys aren’t getting overtures of love from women, she is sadly mistaken. Furthermore, in 3-15 years, badboys have a lot of time to mature, making them more desirable as long-term mates. Many badboys can enjoy the short-term mating party when they are young, then mature a little, and do just fine in long-term mating.

Surely we women are allowed to indulge our sexual attractions towards men we may not necessarily like as people just to get a gratifying lay – so why is it that this has to be seen as having bigger implications than necessary? Nice guys, don’t use this as justification to launch a deceitful and downright spiteful sexual tirade against us, just be patient and give us space!”

Yes, she has the right to make this decree, but she can’t expect these guys to be happy about being virtually locked out of the dating world for 3-15 years. There is going to be an array of negative responses from guys to this situation, some which make sense, and some which do not. But “just be patient and give us space” while watching her party with badboys for 3-15 years? That does have big implications, and they aren’t good ones.

Yes, women have the right to indulge whatever preferences they want for however long they want. Yet we need to understand the situation that male-female differences in preferences creates, a situation that the author still isn’t owning up to. If she was saying, “yeah guys, being locked out of the dating world for 3-15 years majorly sucks, but that’s just how this works,” then what she is saying would actually be defensible.

However, I also think that the mainstream scripts that rule how most of us view sexuality do for the most part favor a certain type of male sexuality, and that this type of male sexuality is fairly exploitative of women. This is bad for almost all women, for men who aren’t normative, and for men who are normative but might be able to get to something even awesomer if they thought outside the script more.

Yes, types of guys who are satisfied by missionary position while the woman lies there like a dead fish and doesn’t orgasm may do pretty well in mainstream sexual scripts. If they have quality orgasms that way and women usually don’t, and maybe some blowjobs are thrown in, then they certainly seem to be getting the better end of the deal.

Of course, other guys just aren’t satisfied by that script, as you observe. I’m not sure they are doing any better than women in it, even if they have crappy orgasms.

Yes, she has the right to make this decree, but she can’t expect these guys to be happy about being virtually locked out of the dating world for 3-15 years.

I think it would be helpful to flip the narrative. IIRC, Clarisse has noted before her experience being overlooked in high school due to her geekiness. But then in college that changed because suddenly being geeky was a positive trait and guys wanted to date her. (Am I recalling that correctly, Clarisse?)

I feel like these situations are almost exactly parallel, excepting perhaps for the time spans involved. I think in both cases people have a right to feel bitter about being overlooked, and to be less than pleased when told, “don’t worry, we’ll get to you eventually…”. But also in both cases, the people that did the overlooking have every right to their preferences. And even to changing preferences.

(This also comes back to my pet-peeve with the whole “entitled” attribution given to Nice Guy(tm). I mean, I can only imagine someone getting all up and pissed about how entitled those manipulative pretending-to-be-your-friend overlooked high school girls are. And then taking the rants from those girls as further evidence of how twisted and misandrist they are.)

Clarisse: Right. Which is why I still make a lot of space and have a lot of respect for radfem critiques. I identify way more with sex+, obviously, but there is something scary and problematic about how so many people interpret sex+ specifically to mean that women get to do things that serve men sexually without it being problematic.

and Sam: I interpreted machina’s statement to refer to men not having had that kind of debate about themselves and their sexual identity (kind of what we’re doing here), but your interpretation is also interesting. But since this seems to be in line with what you mentioned above about “exploitation”, I’m now getting more interested in what makes you bring this kind of thing up now. This really seems like a new aspect to your thinking – at least like something I’ve never really noticed so far.

You’re both right! I don’t think there’s anything wrong with women doing sexy things for men as such, it’s pretty awesome actually. If they’re done without reciprocal sexy things done by men for women though, then it reinforces existing gender imbalances in sexytimes which has all of the fallout we’ve been talking about.

But I wonder if the “clitoris friendly” masculinity mentioned by machina could not be a model offering both options for men as well – not as a mere player, but as an ethical “slut”. But if it exists – and I think it does – then it’s truly a walk on a tightrope, identity and performance-wise. And we still haven’t really filled the notion with a lot of specific content, except for the general idea that displays of dominance need to be balanced by performing on the “AAS axis” (I still think true altruism *IS* a sign of strength, not weakness), and vice versa.

I don’t like the idea of a tightrope because it seem that we retain the negative connotations of both the bad boy and nice guy, or asshole and doormat, forms of male sexuality.

Hugh points out that some guys aren’t getting a lot of sex early in life, but he then seems to characterise the standard sex script as “missionary position while the woman lies there like a dead fish.” Which doesn’t seem to be too much to be missing out on, unless we’re back at looking at sex for men as an accomplishment. I think it’s hard to get past that but it’s also the key to the kind of masculinity that I’m talking about. Of course that still doesn’t mean that there’s an established way to communicate that, but I think “clitoris friendly” is an example of how it can be done. It’s about working out what people really want and sticking a name on it, rather than following scripts.

Hugh points out that some guys aren’t getting a lot of sex early in life, but he then seems to characterise the standard sex script as “missionary position while the woman lies there like a dead fish.” Which doesn’t seem to be too much to be missing out on, unless we’re back at looking at sex for men as an accomplishment.

Or unless you factor in that people have sex drives. Even if the sex sucks, it’s still something that people feel a need/desire for. Kind of sucks, really.

As an aside: anecdotally it seems to me that women generally complain about low quality of sex, whereas men complain about not getting sex at all. Not sure what all of the implications of this are. But it’s interesting.

Being a guy, my first reaction is to say this demonstrates women having it better off since they can even afford to complain about the quality. Beggars can’t be choosers, and all that. But I rather suspect the reality is a lot more complicated, and less obviously favoring one gender or the other.

“# However, I also think that the mainstream scripts that rule how most of us view sexuality do for the most part favor a certain type of male sexuality, and that this type of male sexuality is fairly exploitative of women. This is bad for almost all women, for men who aren’t normative, and for men who are normative but might be able to get to something even awesomer if they thought outside the script more.”

Hmm. Maybe it would be useful to clarify more terminology here. I’ve never had the impression that we’re segmenting sexualities, male or female – at least in my impression the only segmentation we’ve used so far was sex/gender. So we’ve looked at female and male sexuality and attitudes towards female and male sexuality. So I think there is a difference between saying that some types of *expression* of male sexuality is/can be exploitative and say that “some types of male sexuality” are exploitative. That’s saying that the exploitation element is *inherent* to these segments of male sexuality, which, basically, is another way of saying: (Some) men are like that. Since signalling and screening in this area is inherently difficult, that statement is sufficient to uphold social notions of and social practices designed to control the dangers that are coming from some men *inherently*. (and, yes, of course there are inherently problemtic fringe sexualities, but I assume we’re not talking about those under the umbrella term masculinity, particularly since you’re referring to the “normative”).

Basically, this is bringing us back to the problem of feminists trying to remove the essential notion of “men are like that” which makes problematic expressions of male sexuality *a joint social management problem* and treating these problematic expressions as a cultural phenomenon (patriarchy/rape culture) in order to remove restrictions on female sexuality that had beem culturally imposed as an attempt of “joint social management”. So, I mean, this is a pretty straightforward problem – it’s one or the other. If men *are like that*, it’s unfair to ask only them to deal with that aspect of themselves when that aspect is inherently related to and usually triggered by expressions by women, if not, then it’s no longer ok to claim that male sexuality is inherently exploitative – there may be exploitative social scripts, but that is fundamentally different from inherently exploitative sexuality.

“I do try to control this effect, but it’s hard!”

Yeah, online discussions can be hard that way. So let me again remind you how exceptional this series is.

Machina,

“I don’t like the idea of a tightrope because it seem that we retain the negative connotations of both the bad boy and nice guy, or asshole and doormat, forms of male sexuality.”

Well, ideally, I think it wouldn’t be tightrope, but I think given the amount of difficulty we’re having at even coming up with specifics that it would be useful to start somewhere, hoping to enlarge that path later on.

“Which doesn’t seem to be too much to be missing out on, unless we’re back at looking at sex for men as an accomplishment.”

And that goes back to the other main question – the value difference / scarcity aspect of female and male sexualities. I’m quoting myself here (slightly edited) –

We see there is a value difference and that value difference creates a price. Question: why is there a value difference? Answer: part of it is biological, part of it is cultural. Question: can we do something about it? Answer: possibly, at least with respect to the cultural element, should the cultural layer not be necessary consequence of the biological aspect, which is unlikely. Question: What can we do? Answer: We can raise the socially attributed value of male sexuality relative to female sexuality (thereby giving men more choice among women, increasing their ability to say “no” and be more selective than they are willing to be now) and we can decrease the socially attributed value of female sexuality (thereby releaving women from the feeling of giving it up when they have sex and thus allow them to engage in it and enjoy it more freely) – in short, we can try to remove the double binds and create a sex positive/pleasure positive cultural environment. To be honest, after reading more Foucault recently, I’m more sceptical about this being a realistical social option than I was after reading Foster-Wallace, but there’s still a possibility.

But *as long as there is a mutually perceived value difference* women will always feel they’re losing value having sex, and men will feel they’er getting more than they give. Getting more than you give is certainly an “accomplishment”, but it comes at a psychological price.

By the way, a girl once asked me if I prefer bad sex to no sex. I kept asking that question for a couple of years now. No guy ever said they’d prefer no sex to bad sex. Almost all women do. Of course, I don’t know if the guys are lying because they believe they have to.

[…]there may be exploitative social scripts, but that is fundamentally different from inherently exploitative sexuality.

The way I read it, that’s precisely what Clarisse was saying.

I think I agree with her to an extent. But I’ll have to think about it for a while and see where this discussion goes. I don’t feel like I’m well equipped to think about the issue clearly on my own.

By the way, a girl once asked me if I prefer bad sex to no sex. I kept asking that question for a couple of years now. No guy ever said they’d prefer no sex to bad sex. Almost all women do. Of course, I don’t know if the guys are lying because they believe they have to.

For me it would depend a lot on how long it had been since I’d had sex, and whether the bad sex was in the context of a relationship or not. Based on past experience, I would rather have no relationship than a relationship with regularly crappy sex. But in non-commitment situations, and if I hadn’t had sex in a while, I’d definitely be down for crappy sex if good sex wasn’t available.

@Clarisse:

It makes sense that my views on this seem slightly incoherent when I’m getting triggered, I think.

Yeah, definitely. I know how that goes. ;-)

I think that’s just the nature of these discussions. People are going to get triggered (I certainly have). I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

Being locked out of the dating world during your youth has a cascade of psychologically damaging effects.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I tried to describe the effect on me in this comment, but collapsed into wordlessness, so painful was revisiting those feelings. I’ve not commented on manboobz since then. Too vulnerable.

Furthermore, in 3-15 years, badboys have a lot of time to mature, making them more desirable as long-term mates. Many badboys can enjoy the short-term mating party when they are young, then mature a little, and do just fine in long-term mating.

The converse is also true. The locked-out guy may be so harmed by the “cascade of psycholically damaging effects” that he becomes too dysfunctional to benefit from age, if he doesn’t kill himself in the meantime.

Cessen: Or unless you factor in that people have sex drives. Even if the sex sucks, it’s still something that people feel a need/desire for. Kind of sucks, really.

I’m not sure what the difference between sex drive that often ends in bad sex and pursuing sex as an accomplishment that often ends in bad sex is.

Sam: Well, ideally, I think it wouldn’t be tightrope, but I think given the amount of difficulty we’re having at even coming up with specifics that it would be useful to start somewhere, hoping to enlarge that path later on.

Ok, my objection is that I see this as not simply a problem of attracting women as communicating with them, obviously communicating that you’d like to have awesome sex with them. I don’t think that playing different messages off against each other is a good way to communicate. I’m also not interested in fucking women who are interested in me because of status, which a lot of masculinity seems to be about conveying, which is just another manifestation of sex as accomplishment.

In terms of the value side of things, clearly value is dependent on human preference, and changing that the nature of that preference changes the nature of value.

Daran: Some guys don’t get any sex early in life. I didn’t.

Oh yeah, that’s just my understated sort of way of writing. I didn’t have sex until I was in my twenties, and until after I’d had someone accuse me of raping them, which was darkly humourous.

I’m not sure what the difference between sex drive that often ends in bad sex and pursuing sex as an accomplishment that often ends in bad sex is.

The cause of the behavior.

The way you phrased things seemed to me to imply that if the status/accomplishment associated with sex were removed, then guys would rather forego sex than settle for bad sex. But I really doubt that’s the case. I think there are multiple factors at play, one of which is sex drive.

The ‘Nice Guy’ thing is a pet peeve of mine. Most self described ‘nice guys’ or adherents of ‘ladder theory’ who whine about being stuck in the ‘friend zone’ are the opposite of nice and they don’t have any real friendships with women. They’re manipulative jerks who falsify friendship to try and lever a relationship under false pretenses. The women who they claim to be ‘friends’ with are treated more like an unsatisfactory investment that they keep pouring resources into hoping for a dividend. Which is a horrendously ugly way to approach either friendships or sexual relationships.

Clarisse later pointed out:

How did you develop this theory about Nice Guys? I’m curious because you’re echoing a lot of what the feminist blogosphere says about Nice Guys — we even have a pet phrase for them: “Nice Guys ™”.

Daran again: I noticed that.

I can’t think of a single “Nice Guy” I’ve encountered on the net who unambiguously fits that profile. Overwhelmingly, my experience is that this is a round theoretical hole into which feminists ram every “Nice Guy” who comes along, whether or not what he is saying actually fits.

I will concede, however that the “Nice Guys” I encounter are an unrepresentative subset. In particular, I avoid sites with high levels of expressed misogyny.

Scootah:

I think most ‘nice guys’ are guys who are lacking a model for manhood. They are guys who bought into Tom Hanks movies and advice written by women for publication in Cleo. The Nice Guy thing tells us that by being a patient, supportive friend – we’ll find consistency, quality and love.

The problem is most guys who try to be ‘nice guys’ as a path to sex and hopefully love, find out that they’ve just removed themselves from the sexual radar of the women they’re interested in. They’ve set themselves up as asexual, or some other less than desirable arch type. They’re not visible as a potential focus for lust – just for reliability and support.

Those guys aren’t for the most part looking for friendship however. They aren’t getting what they want or need from being a reliable and supportive friend. All they get is disappointment and bitterness as the focus of their affections moves on to someone who is on their sexual radar.

And, in another comment:

I just think that most of the self described nice guys are guys who are trying to be masculine with no idea how to go about it. They’ve based their idea of what the male role in a heterosexual relationship formation is on Hollywood lies and bad advice and have no idea why it isn’t working for them.

I agree with much of what you said in these two quotes, but there seems to be a huge gulf between what you say here, and what you said at top. It seems to me that both both “Nice Guys” and people (of both sexes) who are successful in the dating arena engage in scripted behaviour in the hope of achieving dating success, but only men are condemned as “manipulative jerks”, whether it be the player, who suceeds, or the “Nice Guy” who fails. Nobody, at least in feminist circles, condemn the behaviours women engage in to “get[] guys to notice us” as “manipulative”, whether successful or not.

Enjoy! And, hey, speaking of Halloween and performative sexuality, last night I went to a Halloween party at a gay sauna/bdsm club in a really old scary basement. Interesting experience (although they apparently removed a lot of the “gadgets” and cages), and most interestingly, the most feminine person in the club was a gay barkeeper in drag. I never really noticed how actual women (including the two I was there with) don’t usually display that much feminine energy. I have to admit that, while I know quite a lot of gay guys, none of them ever wears drag (at least to my knowledge), so that was kind of an unusual thing in real life.

@Sam:
Ha ha. Yeah, the friends I’m currently staying with hosted a crazy college Halloween party at their house, which I go to experience (wasn’t much of a partier back in college, so never really had that experience before).

I feel like I could almost write a book on the experience. So much opportunity to observe male/female interactions and behaviors. (Granted, college party interactions and behaviors, but still fascinating.) In any case, I’ll probably reference that party in the future when it’s relevant. :-P

I also received an awesome complement at the party. One of the girls there told me that I was “very disarming”. As someone who’s constantly afraid of coming across as a creep, that was awesome to hear. Ha ha.

Of course in the context of a college party where almost everyone is 7 years younger than me, I wasn’t feeling like that was appropriate anyway. But I mean in general. I’ve been on a couple of dates recently, and I still slip back into Mr. Platonic pretty much involuntarily. It’s weird that even in the context of a date I still have so much trouble with that.

There’s something very ironic–and off-putting quite frankly–about a woman who’s so afraid of being attacked, yet enjoys BDSM. Women such as this scare me actually. I’m afraid of them accusing me of something that them would secretly enjoy. I’m worried of them projecting their fears and desires unto me.

So this comment replied by saying:

Y’know, I completely agree with you. I don’t understand why anyone who likes having their ear lobe bit or their nipple twisted would act like it’s such a big scary deal when I pull out my Smith &Wesson & point it at their spine! They’ve already proven that they like to get hurt – how do I know that they don’t secretly want to get shot? I’m worried that some guy is going to talk about liking pain but then call the cops on me when I shoot off a testicle. I mean, what would be more painful? And how do I know that they wouldn’t really, really **LIKE** it, but go and get me all in trouble & arrested & sh*t just because they’re projecting their fears & desires all over me in a big jumble.

It’s just so terrible to be forced into a situation of terror when you’re just trying to have sex. That terror that throughout history men have had to endure at the hands of women because of their reckless refusal to disavow confusing, contradictory positions like being pro-sex but anti-rape! The pain and horror to which the poor, poor men of this world have been subjected, never sure if they should or shouldn’t rape women who appear to like intercourse but somehow insist on the right of consent, even when they might really like it if they were raped! How confusing. What evil these women perpetrate through their deliberate obfuscation!

If only someone who write an article that would tell people how important it is for men who want consensual sex to be able to talk about what they want without being stigmatized so that honest conversations could be had and these kinds of misunderstandings could be prevented. Where oh where could we find someone willing to stand up for the kind of communication that would prevent misunderstandings, that would encourage the providing with real information without stigmatizing people as sluts or creeps? Yes, DW, that’s the woman that we really should be celebrating, if only there were such a woman. If only we could find her…

@Sam — Maybe the time factor you brought up above is a balancing element, but as most people are dating/mating before the menopausal “power shift” and are still looking for a long-term monogamous relationship I’m not *that* sure about that.

It’s still a pretty serious balancing element. Even discounting the fact that most marriages end in divorce and then the divorced woman is screwed (or rather, not), “market dynamics” still play a role in relationships even when those relationships are supposedly committed, that is, when it is obvious that one person has more romantic options than the other then that starts affecting the relationship in a pretty serious way.

I’d like to get away from the grass-is-greener stuff again, though. Sometimes it seems useful to establish it, but it always seems to end in these snippy little fights ….

But I wonder if the “clitoris friendly” masculinity mentioned by machina could not be a model offering both options for men as well – not as a mere player, but as an ethical “slut”

Polyamory does this to some extent, I think (as does swing), and poly guys are very interestingly stereotyped. My friend Pepper Mint (seriously, it’s his legal name) is a polyamory advocate. I had the craziest conversation about Pepper with another male friend S the other day. The conversation went like this:

Me: Oh, speaking of crazy names, my friend Pepper Mint! Seriously, his name is Pepper Mint, I’ve seen his driver’s license! I know him because he’s a polyamory advocate, and people in the alt sex scene are always assuming that Pepper is a pseudonym, but it’s not!

S: WHAT?! This guy changed his name to Pepper Mint in order to get women! God! That’s so ridiculous!

Me: Wait, what?

S: God damn it, this guy is on such an ego trip! He thinks he can go around treating women badly and breaking hearts and he’s so blatant about it!

Me: Uh … what? Pepper doesn’t —

S: Maybe I should change my name to something ridiculous to get chicks!

Me: … :blink blink: ….

I guess there’s very little space in our culture for poly guys not to be seen as assholes.

@Cessen — And I’ve been thinking: frankly, if the stuff you’re talking about in terms of the typical man’s behavior in bed really is typical, then apparently I must be amazing in bed by comparison. I rarely get to demonstrate that, though.

I think it’s getting exaggerated. For example, Hugh wrote,

Yes, types of guys who are satisfied by missionary position while the woman lies there like a dead fish and doesn’t orgasm may do pretty well in mainstream sexual scripts.

That’s not what I’m talking about when I discuss how these standards fuck women up. I’m talking about women forcing ourselves to act like stereotypical porn stars, which is not actually a great model for most women.

I’m reminded of a sex communication workshop that I ran once in which I asked the college students to describe what they picture when they picture good sex. A male student called out, “Lots of noise.” A female student called out, “Selflessness.” It was a mind-blowing portrait of the gender binary. I don’t have any proof for this, but I very strongly suspect that most women force ourselves to act in ways that match an image of stereotypical good sex (e.g., making lots of noise) at some point, when what we really want is some give-and-take that is extremely difficult to negotiate especially when you’re younger.

Hugh also wrote,

But a 3-15 year waiting period for women to switch over to long-term mating tendencies is a long time. Guys who are waiting can easily develop messed up and misogynistic attitudes towards women, and some guys try to “kill off” their agreeable, altruistic, and sensitive sides (leading to quotes like “there used to be a nice guy inside, but you killed him”).

Sure. And women who are constantly forced to deal with the fact that, for example, we become unfuckable at age 30 can easily develop misandrist attitudes as well. I mentioned recently over at Feminist Critics that I’ve had not one but two recent conversations with guys who blatantly informed me that they don’t date women older than 28 — that’s their upper limit (with the preferred age below that). Both of these guys are older than 28. Nothing makes me want to go out and break hearts, make guys buy me drinks and then laugh in their face, etc. like being informed that I’ll be disposed of in a few years.

@Sam — By the way, a girl once asked me if I prefer bad sex to no sex. I kept asking that question for a couple of years now. No guy ever said they’d prefer no sex to bad sex. Almost all women do. Of course, I don’t know if the guys are lying because they believe they have to.

Awesome example. Makes a lot of sense.

Getting more than you give is certainly an “accomplishment”, but it comes at a psychological price

As any regular reader knows, I used to be pretty much unable to have orgasms, and I still have trouble, and one thing that used to really scare me (and still makes me uneasy sometimes) is the fear that men will feel semi-guilty and therefore resent me for being difficult. This has actually happened, so I know I’m not making it up. I’ve mentioned my ex who flipped out on me for asking for sexual help before. Part of that was definitely him resisting pressure to “perform”. Part of it was also something that I would call “male entitlement” if I were talking to feminists — a feeling that he deserved access to my body on his terms. But part of it was an understandable resistance to the pressure. I don’t forgive him for it, but I understand something about where he was coming from.

I wish it were easier to negotiate the no-to-few-orgasms territory with guys I hook up with. I want there to be a way to easily communicate “Hey, I have trouble having orgasms, but I still want you to pay attention to me sexually, but I don’t want you to feel hugely obligated, but I still need to not feel like you’re using me, but I don’t want you to get resentful and angry and feel like I’m asking for too much, but I don’t want to let you off the hook.” Because guys will let themselves off the hook, and gladly, like the other ex I’ve mentioned, who told me that I was awesome in bed partly because he didn’t have to bother working towards my orgasm.

@Daran — And your justification for this statement is?

You have an entire blog where you critique basic feminist positions. This thread is for manliness.

“Nothing makes me want to go out and break hearts, make guys buy me drinks and then laugh in their face, etc. like being informed that I’ll be disposed of in a few years.”

Well, I don’t know if those guys were actually assholes or just trying to show off or both. If you think they are actually assholes, do treat them accordingly. If you think they’re just scared and feel the need to pretend like they are assholes because they don’t know better, please remind them first that you see through the act. If they don’t get a grip, do what seems necessary…

Anyone watch the latest Weeds episode? Nancy talks to an Arab client who’s running a night club and had just informed her that tomorrow’s ladies’ night – girls who show him the bald stuff get in for free. Then she asks if he could help her procure some passports. He says, sure – just send your man over to some guy. She asks why the man? He replies, well some guy is going to deal with a woman. She looks confused about hearing this from a guy who just mentioned the bald stuff, so she asks “why do you do this?” “What?” “The whole sexist oppression stuff. Why do you do that?” The guy looks at her like she just asks why 1+1 equals two. “Because you [women] scare the shit out of us!”

@Clarisse –I guess there’s very little space in our culture for poly guys not to be seen as assholes.

I’ve written before, I’m not sure if was here or elsewhere – that one of the theories on the prevalence of young male suicide bombers in certain cultures, is that it ties to the presence of a disproportionate access to women. Cultures that develop a lot of suicide bombers tend to have a lot of multiple wife dynamics at a high level, and fewer women than men in the general population due to gender bias among parents anyway. The have nots in that circumstance end up very, very angry/distressed in a way that leads to some serious crazy. The single largest risk factor for suicide is gender already, and when you add to that predisposition the rage, envy and frustration of being unable to find a partner, because they’re all off the market and the lure of many sexual partners in the after life – it’s plausible that you get suicide bombers. Which I know is divergent from the topic – but I think it highlights why poly guys get so much flack.

There’s also a lot of drivers in most cis/hetero guys backgrounds towards the idea of being poly. I think most guys would on some level at least enjoy the sex – if they had multiple partners. I think the same resentment/envy that makes up dislike rich people if they’ve done anything even remotely dubious will lead most men to dive on any excuse to dislike successfully poly guys.

I very strongly suspect that most women force ourselves to act in ways that match an image of stereotypical good sex

This dovetails with something that I’ve written about before also. A lot of guys I think are growing up without a realistic view of male/female relationships or sexual interactions. I think more and more, young men are basing their relationship expectations on the advice of women and media publications that have no real perspective or understanding of what it is to be a guy in a successful relationship with women. Single mothers I assume do a wonderful job of raising children – but without the exposure to a man in a successful relationship with a woman, there’s nothing to observe and model from and there’s much more weight/difficulty on asking questions. The same influences when paired with the internet and the availability of porn from a very young age, I think tinge men’s expectations of sexuality – if you’re not getting the peripheral exposure to a stable and healthy sexual relationship – it’s very easy to build your understanding of what a sexual relationship is around pornography – with no temperance or moderation from the healthy relationships around you. It’s a short mental leap from men basing their sexual expectations on porn – to women acting like they’re in porn as they maintain their sexual relationships with men.

Nothing makes me want to go out and break hearts, make guys buy me drinks and then laugh in their face, etc. like being informed that I’ll be disposed of in a few years.

I think we all realize that this is a circular event. Person A of gender 1 is immature and obnoxious to person B of gender 2. Person B responds by being immature and obnoxious to third parties C, D and E, who are probably of gender 1 – because they have unresolved feelings of anger and discontent towards gender 1 after their poor treatment at the hands of Person A. Persons C, D and E are upset about being treated badly by person B, so they go out and be obnoxious and immature towards persons of gender 2. The cycle only breaks when we mature/grow wise enough to separate gender from individual. Things like ludicrous and hypocritical rules about who is and isn’t dateable based on arbitrary metrics are reflective of either serious mental health issues, or immaturity. For reference, Here’s a complete list of what should be an absolute determination of if someone is datable or not – Chemistry and personal compatibility. If you haven’t got chemistry and you find that your personalities don’t work together – fine, someone is probably note datable. But if you’re writing off potential partners despite great chemistry and personal compatibility because of some random metric like age/income/ethnicity/undergrad choice/car type – good. And please continue not engaging in any act that might further contaminate the gene pool. /ranting diatribe.

told me that I was awesome in bed partly because he didn’t have to bother working towards my orgasm.

I don’t know if you’ve dated spectacular douchebags, or if it’s just that my friends are awesome – but it really staggers me how much trouble you have with guys who don’t understand this sort of thing. I’d probably ask the guy if they enjoy the part of sex that comes before the orgasm? If they don’t, dump them right there – if they do, then ask them if they enjoy an enthusiastic blowjob, or a disinterested handjob? The answer is pretty predictable and it provides a clear analogy to the difference between a sexual act that may or may not lead to orgasm, but is still pleasurable and a sexual act that may or may not lead to orgasm, but is passionless and largely without redeeming features. If from that point, they can’t wrap their head around the idea that even though you might not get off some or even most of the time – you still enjoy good sex where your partner works on giving you pleasure in massive preference to sex with a partner who thinks he doesn’t have to bother, then again – I’d recommend ditching them on the spot and possibly buying yourself a Hitachi Magic Wand or something.

I mentioned recently over at Feminist Critics that I’ve had not one but two recent conversations with guys who blatantly informed me that they don’t date women older than 28 — that’s their upper limit (with the preferred age below that). Both of these guys are older than 28. Nothing makes me want to go out and break hearts, make guys buy me drinks and then laugh in their face, etc. like being informed that I’ll be disposed of in a few years.

Interesting.

I have little problem with dating older women*. I mean, I would feel odd of they were like ten years older than me. But that’s a relative age thing, not an absolute age thing.

In some ways, I wonder if dating older women would actually be good for me, since they’ll have a better idea of what they want both in life and in bed. In a way I feel like my past partners’ uncertainty about what they want sexually has prevented me from exploring what I want. And that’s no one’s fault, but it’s annoying. I think being with a woman that actually knows herself sexually would be absolutely amazing.

Based on my experience on OkCupid, however, most women use their own age as a minimum for who they’ll date. Which is annoying. (I suspect most guys use their own age as a maximum, but haven’t been looking at guy’s profiles.)

* But having said that, I still do feel social pressure (not from anyone, but the general socialized kind) to date women very close to my own age or younger. It feels related to the “looking for a mother figure” trope.
But it’s something I can get over pretty easily. I imagine other guys can’t so easily.

I wish it were easier to negotiate the no-to-few-orgasms territory with guys I hook up with. I want there to be a way to easily communicate “Hey, I have trouble having orgasms, but I still want you to pay attention to me sexually, but I don’t want you to feel hugely obligated, but I still need to not feel like you’re using me, but I don’t want you to get resentful and angry and feel like I’m asking for too much, but I don’t want to let you off the hook.” Because guys will let themselves off the hook, and gladly, like the other ex I’ve mentioned, who told me that I was awesome in bed partly because he didn’t have to bother working towards my orgasm.

Out of curiosity, have you had similar experiences with men other than your topical ex?

That aside, something that was, indeed, difficult for me with my last partner was my inability to figure out how to please her (not just orgasm, but also turning her on, etc.). And I definitely tried. I really did. All throughout the relationship. Including many conversations trying to hash out what it was that she needed/wanted.

I didn’t want to be “off the hook” as you put it. What I wanted was to be able to please her.

But especially after that experience, I think if I ended up in a similar situation with someone where it was obvious that I couldn’t meet their needs, I would probably choose to stop having sex with them and find someone else. Because frankly, I don’t enjoy sex where it feels impossible to please my partner. It’s emotionally difficult for me, for several reasons:
1. Because of cultural pressures to be able to please my partner (I feel like a “failure”).
2. Because regularly having sex that frustrates your partner is… well… crappy.
3. Pleasing my partner is a huge part of what makes sex fun and enjoyable and fulfilling and worthwhile for me. (The other huge part is my partner pleasing me. I need both.) If sex is just them pleasing me or (worse) me pleasing myself with their body… you know, that’s not really cool with me.

And of course it isn’t my partner’s fault if I can’t seem to please her, or if neither of us seems to be able to figure out how I can please her. But… well, it seems best to move onto other partners then anyway.

(Incidentally, I’m wondering if a fear of having a partner leave you if they can’t please you might be part of the psychology behind (some) women’s side of this? Like the whole faking-orgasm thing? Dunno. No idea really, just pondering. It sounded similar to something mentioned in another thread on here.)

Sure. And women who are constantly forced to deal with the fact that, for example, we become unfuckable at age 30 can easily develop misandrist attitudes as well.

Having your dating advantages earlier in life is probably best. Yes, you can get screwed up either way as you point out, but getting screwed up earlier in life tends to be worse than getting screwed up later. Hardship and abuse of many sorts tend to be more damaging during your younger years, because they have a ripple effect throughout the rest of your life. People of the opposite sex suddenly losing interest in you for superficial reasons is bad, but people never being interested in you at all is probably going to give most people bigger baggage. Am I wrong in this speculation?

The other benefit of getting your advantages early is that you can set things up to mitigate your period of disadvantage later. For instance, women can get married before their looks severely drop off. A big chunk of those marriages last.

What about divorce? Are middle-aged divorced women screwed? I don’t agree that men view women as unfuckable after age 30, unless by “unfuckable” you mean “undateable,” and the men you are talking about is men in the top tiers of attractiveness. I’m not convinced of that either, and I’ll explain why after your next quote.

I mentioned recently over at Feminist Critics that I’ve had not one but two recent conversations with guys who blatantly informed me that they don’t date women older than 28 — that’s their upper limit (with the preferred age below that). Both of these guys are older than 28. Nothing makes me want to go out and break hearts, make guys buy me drinks and then laugh in their face, etc. like being informed that I’ll be disposed of in a few years.

I have a friend who says something similar. Though he didn’t put it that he absolutely wouldn’t date women 28 and older, but that he tended to focus his dating efforts towards younger women. This guy is also very successful with women and has a lot of choice. We shouldn’t extrapolate too much from his preferences in trying to figure out what happens to women in general as they age.

(Keep in mind also that his statement of his preferences is theoretical and may not match up with his behavior. I don’t believe that he has yet met a woman who has really hooked him in a relationship sense. If he met a woman with 130+ IQ, stereotypically feminine fashion sense, and an interest in entrepreneurship and video games along with a pleasant personality… then I think we could see him going for something long-term with her, even if she was a point or so lower on the “looks scale” than women he currently focuses on. The problem is he isn’t quite finding women who are his female counterpart in terms of intelligence, interests, and success, which makes him less willing to compromise on looks.)

I don’t think the drop-off in female desirability that occurs somewhere around age 30 is so dramatic in general. And even if sexual desirability drops off, that doesn’t necessarily mean that dating success drops off at the same rate.

Unless you are a guy in the top tiers of attractiveness like my friend, what other women would you date once you hit your 30s and women your age become less desirable to you? You aren’t going to have the choice to date substantially younger women, because they are dating men closer in age, or older men in the top tiers of attractiveness. Instead, you will continue dating women your age (or maybe a little younger, since women on average like slightly older men).

I just don’t see women running into the same sort of lockout as they age that certain types of men run into. To understand why, recall why men can get locked out: polygyny. Men at the top will date multiple women at the same time, or in close succession. Women are more likely to sit out months or years waiting for men in the top tiers to become available, rather than dating men who are “merely” in the same percentile of attractiveness. In contrast, men are more likely to feel that half a loaf is better than no bread.

It’s a lot easier for young women to focus on a smaller subset of young men, than it is for middle-aged men to focus on a smaller subset of women. In middle-age, norms become more monogamous, anyway, and it’s more difficult for one subset of a particular gender to have such highly skewed success.

So yes, women’s attractiveness to men their own age drops off in the 30s. But 30+ men who aren’t in the upper tiers of attractiveness can only date so much younger than themselves. Women in their early to mid-30’s aren’t going to see their dating success decline as fast as their looks decline. They will mainly just lose options with high-attractiveness men their own age, men who actually do have the ability to date significantly younger women.

Even then, I’m not convinced that middle-aged women are screwed. Since women tend to prefer slightly older men, they won’t necessarily be so focused on men their same age. And as men get older, they are more likely to shift towards long-term mating strategies. Long-term mating emphasizes compatibility and de-emphasizes raw sexual attraction. As a result, middle-aged women may still be competitive as relationship partners, even if they can’t compete with younger women for raw desirability.

Taking into account (a) the limited choices of typical 30+ men in the dating market, (b) the shift in preferences in men away from looks and towards compatibility as they age, and (c) the preference of women for slightly older men, it’s not obvious that most women in their 30s become massively disadvantaged in dating who they want relative to their male peers or other women. At least, they probably aren’t experiencing the same levels of lockout that certain segments of young men can get. It’s starting to look like the 30s are where choice starts evening up between men and women. We may need to wait until after menopause to start talking about serious female disadvantages.

So who is this system better for, men or women? While I’m not entirely confident, I’ll make no secret of my suspicion that I think that most women are better off than most men in terms of dating choice. Those that suspicion needs a couple disclaimers. The first disclaimer is that “dating choice” only applies to initial partner acquisition; it doesn’t necessarily mean relationship success, nor does it mean dating happiness. Those are entirely different creatures. For example, some women have preference sets that lead them to go for badboys who are unlikely to make good long-term mates; these women have a lot of choice, but they are spending it on men who will make them predictably unhappy and unsuccessful in relationships.

The second major disclaimer is that there are probably subsets of men who do better than women in the current system, and subset of women who do worse than men. So who exactly benefits in this system?

At the top tiers of attractiveness, I would argue that men may actually do better than women. If you are a guy at the top, you got it made, bro. During youth, you’re better off, because most girls are ignoring other guys in order to compete over you. Even though I argued that most women have better dating choice than most men, the people who are at the top in terms of choice are probably also men. (Seeing men at both the top of bottom of hierarchies is common in my form of gender politics.)

Then for the attractiveness range of average up to those top tiers, I would suggest that women outclass men for dating choice. During the polygynous season of youth, women in this class simply have more choice. Later in life, attractive women have plenty of time to find life partners before their looks fade, which diminishes their chances of running into a period of disadvantage or lockout.

For people of below average attractiveness, things get interesting, and I’m less sure about the dynamics. It’s quite plausible that when women of below average attractiveness hit their 30s, they may fall short of male standards, even of their male peers. This could cause a massive drop in dating options.

Yet even with this massive drop, it’s not clear that below average men are doing any better. In polygynous cultures like the U.S., they spend their youth getting locked out or majorly overlooked. They can get in the game later in life, but who can they date, other than women of similar levels of attractiveness? They can’t ignore their female peers in favor of other women.

As for substantially low-attractiveness people, it’s plausible that men could be advantaged in choice. Both genders get ignored, but men can improve their attractiveness more if they can somehow attain high social skills, status, money, or fame. (Though of course, it’s not easy for men in this category to achieve those things, because they get bullied a lot.)

I can also slice the population in other segments where there could be male advantage. Take the case of “late bloomers,” people who get overlooked in life and increase their attractiveness later in life. Female late bloomers miss out on the years where they have the most choice; just as they are starting to get the hang of dating, they are about to run into their drop in attractiveness. Male late bloomers get put through the ringer during their youth, but they can potentially make a big comeback later in life if they weren’t too traumatized. For instance, a guy can hit wealth or status in his early 30s, and get a nice window of dating women in their 20s.

Basically, the hierarchy for dating choice over the lifetime seems to look something like this: elite men > elite women, at least average-attractiveness women > at least average-attractiveness men, and it’s not obvious whether things are more sucky for men or women of below obvious attractiveness. So there is a larger subset of people where women have more dating choice over men, rather than the reverse. But it’s quite possible that men at the top are making out like bandits. (This is a similar pattern as with political power in the U.S.: elite men > elite women. But more non-elite women have political power, because more men are incarcerated or otherwise locked out of politics.)

Any other ideas for slices of the population where men have more dating choice?

In short, I think the situation of women in their 30s is slightly less bleak than you may fear.

– Despite potential rough patches in that time period, lots of women can avoid them by attaining a life partner before trouble hits. Women can use their period of advantages to mitigate their period of disadvantages. Men can’t do this, because it’s impossible to grab status, social skills, money (and a less skewed environment of female preferences) from the future unless you have a time machine.

– Disadvantages suffered in the past tend to be more psychologically damaging than disadvantages anticipated in the future.

– Youthful polygyny > middle-age polyandry. There is bigger potential for people you want to date to skew their attention towards only a subset of your gender if you are male. This effect makes it easier for young men to be locked out or overlooked than middle-aged women. Even if these women’s desirability goes down, their dating success won’t decline so badly, because not every guy in his thirties can date women in their twenties.

– Men’s preferences shift towards the long-term (and become less looks-oriented) as they age. A woman is fine as long as aging doesn’t stick her below the dwindling standards of men she wants to date.

At the top tiers of attractiveness, I would argue that men may actually do better than women. If you are a guy at the top, you got it made, bro. During youth, you’re better off, because most girls are ignoring other guys in order to compete over you. Even though I argued that most women have better dating choice than most men, the people who are at the top in terms of choice are probably also men.

At the Halloween party I went to, the girls were fawning over one (maybe two?) of the boys there, and everyone else was just left to do more ‘normal’ socializing. It was interesting to watch. (I’ve also seen this phenomenon before, but didn’t really take note of it until now. Not entirely sure why. Possibly because the fawning type generally aren’t who I want to date? Dunno.)

Having said that, the guy they were fawning over is a good friend of mine, and he really is an awesome guy. So I can’t fault them for it. ;-)

But the disappointment of the other guys was noticeable (though subtle… they weren’t being at all overt about it).

At the same time, I think in a way this kind of screws the girls as well, since the boys they want are few, and many girls are going for those few boys at once. (But if I’m being honest, I can’t really feel all that bad for them since it seems largely self-inflicted. Although I suppose people don’t really have so much control over who they’re attracted to, so dunno.)

Check out the chart “how a person’s desirability changes over time”. We should do the integral for both curves and finally settle “who has it worse”. Does the male advantage in later life outweigh the female advantage early on? I think, interestingly, the areas look very different, but seem rather similarly sized.

@Sam:
Really cool. A couple of things that I find particularly helpful from that:
1. Although women claim they’re minimum age is pretty much they’re own age, in reality they still messaging much younger guys than that claimed minimum. So perhaps I shouldn’t feel so locked-out from older women. Hooray!
2. Apparently 26 is a switch-over age, at least in the okcupid population. And that being my age right now… I guess I can look forward to more dating success. Ha ha. (Of course… I still need to teach myself to express interest. Gah.)

The rest of the article is interesting, too. I think I may well focus my efforts on older women from now on. ;-)

(Of course due to self-selection bias, OkCupid may not be representative of the general population. But still.)

Hrm. Something else occurs to me, regarding the OkCupid data. I don’t by any means think this accounts for all guys, but:

My own messaging habits are very much toward women my own age or younger, despite my stated age bracket being pretty equal-opportunity. Which is highly consistent with their data on men. But the reason for that in my case is precisely because I’m not going to message women that say I’m out of their age bracket, and so many of the women use their own age (or near it) as their minimum. And I imagine there are other guys like myself, so that probably accounts for some (certainly not all) of it.

The OkCupid data is stunningly consistent with my hypotheses, especially considering that I hadn’t seen it before.

This article actually paints a much rosier picture for women than some of the scenarios we’ve discussed.

For instance, men set the max allowable age of their matches to be around 4 years older than themselves, and they actually do message women in that age group (though they message substantially younger women also). Women’s max allowable match age is only a couple years older than men’s, though they message men a couple years older than that, too. So women are more open to older partners, but aren’t completely closed to them.

Take a look at the How a Person’s Desirability Changes with Time graph. There does seem to be a point where men catch up to women in dating choice and overtake them around 26, and women do have a decline. Of course, since OkCupid’s users are skewed towards youth, the reality is probably even friendlier to women, and the crossover probably doesn’t occur until later.

Until age 26, young women command substantially more interest: for some ages, up to 30% more of the entire population. For example, 21 year-old women command the interest of about 78% of the dating pool, vs. 40% for men (the average), a difference of 38% of the dating pool (and nearly 2-to-1 in relative numbers).

After age 26, men never outclass women by such a wide absolute margin (no more than 15% more of the population goes for women). As for choice relative to men, men don’t have double the choice of women until age 45+. By then only a minority of the population is into you regardless of your gender.

Women massively outclass men in dating choice in their youth, and trail a bit behind after the flip. Of course, that’s just in desired partners, not actual dating. And since it’s often substantially older men interested in younger women, those men are not always useful choices for women.

In other words, given that nobody is drop-dead gorgeous or drop-dead hideous, your average 25 year-old is roughly as good-looking as your average 35 year-old.

I’m skeptical. On OkCupid, you have more opportunities to rate people near your age. So the rating data is skewed. What I think this result really suggests is that “your average 25 year-old is roughly as good-looking as your average 35 year-old to people close to them in age.” This would suggest that men’s preferences for looks scale down as they age.

It’s an encouraging result for women, though probably more useful in real life rather than in online dating, because in the latter, men pay more attention to age, while in the former, men are paying more attention directly to looks.

This is, predictably, a more nuanced discussion than my initial reaction to the data. I don’t have much to contribute but I encourage everyone to stick to analysis that avoids grass-is-greener syndrome.

Regarding my exes, I just want to note that I think the reaction to my quotations, examples, etc has been based on a very small slice of their behaviors. I haven’t dated anyone who I would never speak to again, who I think frequently treated me with contempt, who I dislike, etc. In other words, quotations and examples from my actual exes come from basically decent guys. Part of the reason I find feminism so compelling is that it provides a framework for conceptualizing men who act like that — I can think of them as highly influenced by our culture, rather than basically douchebags *. The same way I was highly influenced by our culture when I failed to call them out on their bullshit, or even encouraged them in it, or probably at some point did fucked up things around sexuality that hurt them too.

I don’t want to make this too personal, but it seems to me that much of the reaction has been because people want to distance themselves from negative examples, which isn’t necessarily productive. People do and say some awful things during relationships, and no one is immune: not me, and not you guys, and not any of our partners, and possibly not even God. When I write about this stuff, I’m not meaning to call out specific people on things they have done, I’m meaning to provide examples that illustrate some generalities. For example, the phenomenon that feminists refer to as “male entitlement” is a real thing, whether you want to use those words or not. You can pick the stereotype of “male entitlement” apart, and that’s fair, and you can provide examples of other forms of “entitlement” or of factors that counterbalance “male entitlement”, and that’s fair too … but I just hope you don’t get to the point where you think you have nothing to learn about general patterns … I certainly try not to.

Cessen: [I’m not sure what the difference between sex drive that often ends in bad sex and pursuing sex as an accomplishment that often ends in bad sex is.]

The cause of the behavior.

The way you phrased things seemed to me to imply that if the status/accomplishment associated with sex were removed, then guys would rather forego sex than settle for bad sex. But I really doubt that’s the case. I think there are multiple factors at play, one of which is sex drive.

Ok, I agree there’s more to it and that people have sex drives but I’m not sure how to distinguish them to say anything meaningful about them. Moreover they’re similar enough that I think the same strategy applies to both, which is I guess, if you want better sex then you have to first stop having bad sex.

Clarisse I’m reminded of a sex communication workshop that I ran once in which I asked the college students to describe what they picture when they picture good sex. A male student called out, “Lots of noise.” A female student called out, “Selflessness.” It was a mind-blowing portrait of the gender binary. I don’t have any proof for this, but I very strongly suspect that most women force ourselves to act in ways that match an image of stereotypical good sex (e.g., making lots of noise) at some point, when what we really want is some give-and-take that is extremely difficult to negotiate especially when you’re younger.

…

I wish it were easier to negotiate the no-to-few-orgasms territory with guys I hook up with. I want there to be a way to easily communicate “Hey, I have trouble having orgasms, but I still want you to pay attention to me sexually, but I don’t want you to feel hugely obligated, but I still need to not feel like you’re using me, but I don’t want you to get resentful and angry and feel like I’m asking for too much, but I don’t want to let you off the hook.” Because guys will let themselves off the hook, and gladly, like the other ex I’ve mentioned, who told me that I was awesome in bed partly because he didn’t have to bother working towards my orgasm.

I think the best thing to do here is to say something simple like, “Ok, I don’t always orgasm from it but I’d really enjoy it if you’d X my Y,” or “I don’t always orgasm but I can have a hell of a lot of fun trying.” Then make lots of noise.

Looking at it from the other side, what would you like a guy to say to make you feel more at ease?

I don’t have much to contribute but I encourage everyone to stick to analysis that avoids grass-is-greener syndrome.

I didn’t intend my anecdotes/personal stories to be a grass-is-greener argument. Just more data to throw into the discussion. I apologize if it came across otherwise.

Regarding my exes, I just want to note that I think the reaction to my quotations, examples, etc has been based on a very small slice of their behaviors. I haven’t dated anyone who I would never speak to again, who I think frequently treated me with contempt, who I dislike, etc. In other words, quotations and examples from my actual exes come from basically decent guys.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Part of why I distance myself from that is because I so often see these (or at least I feel like I see it–maybe not in reality) framed as horrible things to do. It’s not just “this is something to work on”, but, “you have committed a serious wrong”.

One of my previous partners told me I was her “back-up” for sex (she had another partner at the time too… part of why I’m not keen on trying polyamory for a while). It definitely sucked, and hurt. And it was inappropriate on her part. But it also wasn’t some horrible wrong that she needed to make up for. It’s just… you know, “work on not saying shit like that, especially to relatively insecure partners”.

For example, the phenomenon that feminists refer to as “male entitlement” is a real thing, whether you want to use those words or not.

Yes. I agree. Emphatically.

The thing that I take issue with is that in a great many circumstances the external manifestations of entitlement are extremely similar to the external manifestations of frustration and disappointment. And I don’t see this acknowledged very much. And my general experience with the feminist blogosphere thus far has been that “entitled” is slapped onto anything that even looks like entitlement, even when it very well might not be. Which IMO is highly counter-productive, on top of just being annoying as hell.

For example, expressing frustration that your partner isn’t having sex with you… I rather suspect much of the feminist blogosphere would slap “entitled” on that. But I don’t think that’s the proper analysis in a great many cases.

And I think you actually experienced that flipped around over at feminist critics, when typhonblue was going on about how horrible those women are who complain about their partners not putting effort into their orgasms. She was making an entitlement argument. But I really don’t think that’s the correct analysis in a great many cases either.

Frustration does not equal entitlement.

And when frustration is labeled as entitlement, it basically comes across as, “You’re not allowed to have feelings.” Or at least as, “You’re not allowed to express your feelings.”

Yeah, I said in the other thread: “When it comes to male entitlement to sex, while I think there are cases where entitlement is the right word, a lot of the time it’s more a perceived requirement to do a particular kind of sex in order to perform a reasonably convincing masculinity. The difference is usually pretty obvious: men feeling they are required to have sex are desperate and needy where men feeling they are entitled to sex are pushy and demanding.”

I think there are also times when you’re entitled to be entitled. If you’re looking for a sexual relationship you’re entitled to make a polite approach in an appropriate setting. If you’re already in a sexual relationship you’re entitled to express your desires, entitled to respect and entitled to some level of sexual effort. Sometimes feminists will point out that men are displaying entitlement where these entitlements can be quite fair and reasonable.

Cessen:For example, expressing frustration that your partner isn’t having sex with you… I rather suspect much of the feminist blogosphere would slap “entitled” on that. But I don’t think that’s the proper analysis in a great many cases.
True. (And I would not be surprised to see a few “rape apologist” and the standard anti-woman rantings to com along with it.) But I think one pretty good measure for telling if the word entitlement actually applies in a given situation is to reverse the genders. If it was a woman in that position would they be calling that entitled? Considering the powder keg such a reversal can lead to (and probably why some feminists try to preemptively head off the reversal argument by calling it invalid for whatever reason) I think we may know the answer.

I mean look at the larger social reaction to someone being frustrated over not getting as much sex as they want.

But I think one pretty good measure for telling if the word entitlement actually applies in a given situation is to reverse the genders. If it was a woman in that position would they be calling that entitled?

I’m not convinced that this is actually a good measure, and here’s why: people like to think of themselves as consistent. If someone is really invested in the idea that something is “entitled” in men, I think they are actually quite likely to concede that it is also “entitled” in women so that they can be consistent whilst still holding onto the viewpoint they are invested in. On the flip side, if someone is really invested in not seeing a something as “entitled” in women, they are very likely to concede that it is not “entitled” in men either, again so that they can hold onto the viewpoint that they are invested in while seeing themselves as consistent.

(Although, indeed, people will also often create really contorted theories to try to have their cake and eat it too.)

And I’m sure I’ve seen this in the feminist blogosphere (though no specific examples come to mind). I’ve certainly noted it in myself, at various points in my life. I think it’s a very common and human thing to do. In the face of something that someone is really invested in, they are more likely to seek consistency than correctness.

And the trouble with this is that consistency does not make something correct. It just makes it consistent.

I should note that I think the contortionist theories tend to pop up when people are invested in two contradictory-ish things. So for example, if someone is both invested in seeing something as “entitled” in men and in not seeing it as entitled in women. But the fact that there is this conflict, and that they are making contortionist theories, does not actually give any good information on whether that thing is actually entitled or not.

I should lastly note again that, as I stated in my above post, the external manifestations of entitlement can look extremely similar to other things in a lot of circumstances. So you can actually have multiple people behaving in pretty damned similar ways, and some of them could be entitled, and others not.

Cessen:But the fact that there is this conflict, and that they are making contortionist theories, does not actually give any good information on whether that thing is actually entitled or not.
I can dig that because when I think about ultimately I basing it on what other people think about something being entitled or not. One example that comes to mind is privilege (which I guess you could say that entitlement is a subcategory of in some cases).

Many feminists will do those contortions you speak of in order to assert that when it comes to gender only men can have privilege. Now I personally think any true fair minded person will think that’s nonsense and when I get to it the fact that some people would try to argue that, let’s say how child custody usually favors moms over dads, isn’t female privilege isn’t proof that it is in and of itself.

Many feminists will do those contortions you speak of in order to assert that when it comes to gender only men can have privilege.

Just to be clear, my point is that everyone does this. It’s certainly not limited to feminists (from what I gather, it seems like a lot of MRA’s are like this to an extreme degree, for example). I know I do it. I’m sure there are viewpoints I’m holding at this very moment that are like that. I don’t know what they are. But I’m sure they’re there.

I think it’s a common human reaction when you’re invested in ideas or viewpoints or philosophies or whatever. And it can be really hard to get over, because it has more to do with overcoming emotional reactions than with pure reasoning.

“For too long, my message towards men has come across as stopping at “Look, don’t be a predator, don’t be an asshole, make sure you honor the central importance of enthusiastic consent.” But when it comes to talking about a practical vision for what healthy male feminist heterosexual behavior looks like, I’ve done a very poor job. And some of that failure has been rooted in an inability (and occasionally, an outright refusal) to take seriously the dilemma so many well-intentioned young men face.”

@machina: I think the best thing to do here is to say something simple like, “Ok, I don’t always orgasm from it but I’d really enjoy it if you’d X my Y,” or “I don’t always orgasm but I can have a hell of a lot of fun trying.” Then make lots of noise.

Looking at it from the other side, what would you like a guy to say to make you feel more at ease?

Well, I do try to say these things …. It’s just very tricky conversational territory, you know?

The question is interesting. I never thought about it. I think the best thing a guy could say would be something like “I understand that you could be feeling a lot of pressure around this. I don’t mind if you take a while to come and I also agree that it is lots of fun to try. I won’t feel emasculated if you don’t come, but I’m also committed to doing what you need me to do — at least I’m committed to it absent total exhaustion, and by total exhaustion I mean we’ve-just-spent-4-hours-having-sex-and-it’s-now-3am; I don’t mean I-just-came-and-I’m-tired. So don’t feel anxious or guilty for asking me to put in some extra time if that’s what you need.”

@Cessen — And when frustration is labeled as entitlement, it basically comes across as, “You’re not allowed to have feelings.” Or at least as, “You’re not allowed to express your feelings.”

This is fair. I think the key to expressing frustration without expressing entitlement (or being perceived as expressing entitlement) is probably:

1) Avoid prescriptive statements (“this is fucked up, so everyone should act like X instead!”).
2) Use “I feel” statements a lot, which is a good communication guideline anyway.
3) Acknowledge the outliers? I’m not sure about this one, but it’s generally a good tactic anyway, so I’m throwing it in there.

[Consistency-seeking] … I think it’s a common human reaction when you’re invested in ideas or viewpoints or philosophies or whatever. And it can be really hard to get over, because it has more to do with overcoming emotional reactions than with pure reasoning.

I agree. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but this is one of those reasons I am really interested in rationalist theories and websites like LessWrong, where the whole goal is to figure out what kind of irrational weird shit everyone does mentally.

Re: the OkC data, I think I substantially agree with most of what Hugh’s written, but I’d like to see some evidence for this:

– Disadvantages suffered in the past tend to be more psychologically damaging than disadvantages anticipated in the future.

at least I’m committed to it absent total exhaustion, and by total exhaustion I mean we’ve-just-spent-4-hours-having-sex-and-it’s-now-3am; I don’t mean I-just-came-and-I’m-tired.

I’m assuming you’re exaggerating with the 4 hours/3am thing, with respect to what you would expect a guy to be willing to do? I mean, I think that kind of thing can be fun every once in a while. But that is a completely unreasonable expectation on a regular basis. Having done it before, “total exhaustion” is right. Not to mention sleep deprivation which affects you the next day. That goes beyond just commitment. That’s serious above-and-beyond stuff.

I mean, I sympathize with the women that need that. That sucks big time. But that doesn’t make it a reasonable expectation.

This is fair. I think the key to expressing frustration without expressing entitlement (or being perceived as expressing entitlement) is probably:

1) Avoid prescriptive statements (“this is fucked up, so everyone should act like X instead!”).
2) Use “I feel” statements a lot, which is a good communication guideline anyway.
3) Acknowledge the outliers? I’m not sure about this one, but it’s generally a good tactic anyway, so I’m throwing it in there.

Sure, there are lots of way to express frustration in a healthy fashion. And I think that’s good advice.

But in terms of a movement (feminism) that is doing cultural analysis, it is incumbent upon them to take into account that most people don’t do this. Most people rant. Often in exaggerated ways. Especially on the internet. But also in real life, especially to third parties.

However, it occurs to me that frustration can somewhat easily turn into entitlement. But this is a general human trait, not specific to men.

I feel like the more useful analysis of “male entitlement” is in the areas where frustration isn’t a reasonable/understandable reaction. Because otherwise it’s likely that it’s just the normal human condition.

The question is interesting. I never thought about it. I think the best thing a guy could say would be something like “I understand that you could be feeling a lot of pressure around this. I don’t mind if you take a while to come and I also agree that it is lots of fun to try. I won’t feel emasculated if you don’t come, but I’m also committed to doing what you need me to do — at least I’m committed to it absent total exhaustion, and by total exhaustion I mean we’ve-just-spent-4-hours-having-sex-and-it’s-now-3am; I don’t mean I-just-came-and-I’m-tired. So don’t feel anxious or guilty for asking me to put in some extra time if that’s what you need.”

There’s a lot of chicken-and-egg stuff going on here, I think. It can be difficult for me as a guy to talk much about female orgasm, because I don’t want to create pressure on her to have one (and jinx it?). At the same time, it could be difficult for her to raise the subject because she doesn’t want to put pressure on me.

There have been times where I’ve gotten weird reactions from even raising the subject of things I could do to help someone orgasm. For instance, when I asked the second girl I was with to help me find her clit, she said “no, you have to find it!” It was cute the way she said it, but it was incredibly unhelpful and made me feel incompetent, especially since she knew that I was much less sexually experienced than her. It’s like, Geez, can’t you take a short break from testing my masculinity so that I can make you come? That experience made me wary about future communication with women about orgasming.

Cessen said:

I’m assuming you’re exaggerating with the 4 hours/3am thing, with respect to what you would expect a guy to be willing to do? I mean, I think that kind of thing can be fun every once in a while. But that is a completely unreasonable expectation on a regular basis. Having done it before, “total exhaustion” is right. Not to mention sleep deprivation which affects you the next day. That goes beyond just commitment. That’s serious above-and-beyond stuff.

I agree. I’m emotionally willing to spent large amounts of time to work towards an experience someone enjoys, but there is only so much my body can take. Eventually, my hands/lips/neck/shoulders get sore. And if that happens, it can inhibit me doing anything with them for the rest of the weekend. I’m not sure whether Clarisse thinks that a 3-4 hour session until 3 am should be typical, or if she is merely stressing that “I’ve come and now I’m tired” shouldn’t be typical.

At the same time, I think there are ways for long sessions to work if both people plan them right. There need to be a mechanism for shifting positions, checking in, and perhaps even taking breaks.

Several times, I’ve been working on giving someone an orgasm in a certain position, and then realizing that I’m getting more and more uncomfortable because something is getting strained or sore. But they seem to be enjoying it. “Should I stop, I wonder? But what if they are on their way to orgasm, and me interrupting to reposition would put them back to square one? For now, it’s better to keep soldiering on…” So I continue for a few minutes, and… no orgasm. Then I run through that whole thought process again and keep going.

I’ve had cases where I loop through this scenario over the course of 15-20 minutes in the same position, until eventually my neck or hand gets wrecked and I have to stop completely.

This kind of scenario could be headed off at the pass with better communication in advance. I need to feel that if we are doing the same thing for a long time, it’s OK for me to switch positions or take breaks. It could also help for her to check in with me at some time when she isn’t getting close to an orgasm, so I don’t need to worry about ruining the mood at the wrong time.

I’m not sure whether Clarisse thinks that a 3-4 hour session until 3 am should be typical, or if she is merely stressing that “I’ve come and now I’m tired” shouldn’t be typical.

I’m assuming the latter. Reading back over my response, I’m realizing it comes across more “rawr!” than I intended. I just wanted to make we’re all on the same wavelength here…

I agree. I’m emotionally willing to spent large amounts of time to work towards an experience someone enjoys, but there is only so much my body can take. Eventually, my hands/lips/neck/shoulders get sore.

Yeah.

But I guess what I was getting at was more that a 4-hour session lasting until 3am is pretty workable if it’s, say, weekly. Like Friday nights, for example. But 3-4 days a week, or daily, or however often sex might happen in a relationship… that’s really not feasible. Even putting exhaustion and the whole 3am thing aside, 4 hours is a really big chunk of time to be setting aside that frequently.

(And, obviously, for anyone who works a normal-ish job, sex until 3am just isn’t going to work.)

Several times, I’ve been working on giving someone an orgasm in a certain position, and then realizing that I’m getting more and more uncomfortable because something is getting strained or sore. But they seem to be enjoying it. “Should I stop, I wonder? But what if they are on their way to orgasm, and me interrupting to reposition would put them back to square one? For now, it’s better to keep soldiering on…” So I continue for a few minutes, and… no orgasm. Then I run through that whole thought process again and keep going.

Oh my god, yes! This has happened to me so much. And yeah, it seems like there must be a better way to manage this.

@Sam — Well, past experiences tend influence the way expectations are handled mentally. If the psychological foundation is messed up, anticipated problems will have more mental weight.

Maybe? I’m not convinced that I’m less psychologically damaged by the fact that my mom says things like “Until you’re 30, men will be trying to get a commitment out of you; after you’re 30, they’ll be trying to avoid commitment,” or by people like the guys I mentioned earlier who kind of blatantly told me that I’d be beyond the pale very soon, or by the various other age-related crap that’s hurled at women on a regular basis, than some men are by the current situation.

I mean, we’ll never actually know for sure. But I’m just saying.

@Cessen — I mean, I sympathize with the women that need that. That sucks big time.

I don’t think anyone needs 4 hours of stimulation in order to have an orgasm, or at least I’ve never heard of such a thing. As Hugh noted, I was mostly “stressing that ‘I’ve come and now I’m tired’ shouldn’t be typical”.

And for the record, every long sex session I have participated in has been with the enthusiastic consent of my partner :P

@Hugh — Several times, I’ve been working on giving someone an orgasm in a certain position, and then realizing that I’m getting more and more uncomfortable because something is getting strained or sore. But they seem to be enjoying it. “Should I stop, I wonder? But what if they are on their way to orgasm, and me interrupting to reposition would put them back to square one? For now, it’s better to keep soldiering on…” So I continue for a few minutes, and… no orgasm. Then I run through that whole thought process again and keep going.

This is not a problem experienced only by men …. There are men who fit the “not lasting long” stereotype, but there are also men who don’t. And stereotypical male sexual entitlement mixed with a dude who lasts for a long time can be a really awful combination. Especially when that dude will act like it’s sooo weird if you want him to keep working on you after he’s come, because he’s sooo tired. Sigh. Sometimes I think we get too personal on this thread. And then I remember that I’m a sex blogger.

Yeah. I think the best way to negotiate this is just for both partners to feel comfortable with each other, with being honest and taking breaks.

For instance, when I asked the second girl I was with to help me find her clit, she said “no, you have to find it!” It was cute the way she said it, but it was incredibly unhelpful and made me feel incompetent, especially since she knew that I was much less sexually experienced than her.

Wow. That’s mind-blowing. I guess she must have felt pretty uncomfortable just pointing it out to you? I wonder why? Maybe she wanted more foreplay first? Very weird.

I don’t think anyone needs 4 hours of stimulation in order to have an orgasm, or at least I’ve never heard of such a thing. As Hugh noted, I was mostly “stressing that ‘I’ve come and now I’m tired’ shouldn’t be typical”.

*nods*

Thanks for the clarification.

And for the record, every long sex session I have participated in has been with the enthusiastic consent of my partner :P

Sweet. :-)

Unfortunately, I certainly cannot say that every long sex session I’ve participated in has been with my enthusiastic consent. The 3am thing? When I need to be up in the morning? For me that’s not hypothetical at all. (Although it had more to with extremely long foreplay than with extremely long time to bring my partner to orgasm. But the end result is the mostly same.)

So… I guess, yeah, it’s a bit of a triggery topic for me.

It’s tricky, because on the one hand I can imagine myself in a healthy sexual relationship, and in that case this would all be moot. Because, as I’ve noted before, I like pleasing my partners. It’s a hell of a lot of fun. (It actually confuses me that there are people out there that don’t enjoy it.)

But you throw in some toxic dynamics, and it all gets screwed. And the extent to which I agree with typhonblue on this topic is that when those toxic dynamics are present, it’s really important to be able to say no and not feel like a bad/inconsiderate person for doing so. And for me that’s really hard.

Clarisse: Well, I do try to say these things …. It’s just very tricky conversational territory, you know?

The question is interesting. I never thought about it. I think the best thing a guy could say would be something like “I understand that you could be feeling a lot of pressure around this. I don’t mind if you take a while to come and I also agree that it is lots of fun to try. I won’t feel emasculated if you don’t come, but I’m also committed to doing what you need me to do — at least I’m committed to it absent total exhaustion, and by total exhaustion I mean we’ve-just-spent-4-hours-having-sex-and-it’s-now-3am; I don’t mean I-just-came-and-I’m-tired. So don’t feel anxious or guilty for asking me to put in some extra time if that’s what you need.”

Heh.

I think that this brings up an interesting point though. Upthread I said, “If you’re already in a sexual relationship you’re entitled to express your desires, entitled to respect and entitled to some level of sexual effort.” And I wasn’t sure how to phrase the level of effort that a person is entitled to, given differing sex drives, ease of orgasm, differing desires/fantasies/kinks, etc. Obviously this is something that needs to worked out between individuals, and will involve some level of trade. For some people, particularly those that demand four hours of exhausting toil to reach their blood-soaked orgasm, this trade might obviously be difficult to balance. Generally, any trade in a marketplace of two seems likely to be unbalanced, so is the solution polygamy? Is pornography, when used by people in a monogamous relationship to fulfill some unmet desire, a kind of phantom polygamy in that sense?

This is not a problem experienced only by men …. There are men who fit the “not lasting long” stereotype, but there are also men who don’t. And stereotypical male sexual entitlement mixed with a dude who lasts for a long time can be a really awful combination.

Yeah, definitely.

I guess, though, I feel like my reaction on both sides (male or female) ought to be roughly the same (although, admittedly, in practice it’s not… in favor of women):
If something is causing pain or substantial physical discomfort for your partner, it’s not reasonable to expect them to continue unless they want to. And it’s not inconsiderate of them to not want to continue. On the contrary, it’s very _considerate_ of them if they _do_ continue.

But yeah, any time a double-standard comes into play (like the male entitlement thing you mentioned), of course that’s messed up. But I think there are women out there that hold men to sexual double-standards as well, and could similarly be labeled “entitled”.

It occurs to me that even the language “lasting long/not lasting long” itself reinforces the idea that guys can’t please there partners after they have themselves orgasmed. Like, you have to “last” long enough for your partner.

@Cessen — toxic dynamics, yeah … there are acts that I really enjoy but that have all kinds of awkward triggers around them now, because of negative previous experiences. Giving oral is a good example — I really like doing it and always have, but nowadays I have certain boundaries around it that I sometimes need to make very explicit, because otherwise I start getting hugely anxious and feeling used.

@machina — Generally, any trade in a marketplace of two seems likely to be unbalanced, so is the solution polygamy? Is pornography, when used by people in a monogamous relationship to fulfill some unmet desire, a kind of phantom polygamy in that sense?

There are some sex-positive writers who try to set up pornography use as a “right” or an “entitlement” in relationships. I disagree with this approach because I don’t like any approach that sets up entitlement, and I think porn in particular is too triggering for too many people to reasonably be cast in the same light for everyone. People often (legitimately, I think) feel “cheated on” when they discover partners using porn in a relationship they believed was porn-free. But I see where they’re coming from — disallowing porn use on the part of one’s partner comes perilously close to exercising some potentially nasty control over their entire sexuality.

toxic dynamics, yeah … there are acts that I really enjoy but that have all kinds of awkward triggers around them now, because of negative previous experiences. Giving oral is a good example — I really like doing it and always have, but nowadays I have certain boundaries around it that I sometimes need to make very explicit, because otherwise I start getting hugely anxious and feeling used.

Yeah, I had a partner with similar issues. The first time I asked for oral sex from her it really caught me off guard, because her eyes got wide and she just froze up.

She told me that I shouldn’t ask for oral from her. If she wants to do it, she will. Which was of course totally fair. And needless to say, I never asked for oral from her again.

That played nasty with my sense of my own toxicity, though. I mean, clearly her issues weren’t about me. But when you’re drilled by your culture since a young age to see your sexuality as dangerous/toxic/unwanted, it’s not exactly easy to avoid the emotions that can be brought up by something like that.

I think there are a lot of cases where different people’s damage around sexuality can interact with each other in bad ways. Which sucks.

Polygamy is an exploitative, unbalanced system that almost always hurts women.

Is polygamy, by definition, always multiple women to one man?

In any case, yeah, I imagine it’s harmful to women. But also harmful to most men (presuming roughly equal gender populations) if the levels of polygamy are significant, since that locks most men out of having romantic/sexual relationships with women. The type of harm is different, of course. But it’s there.

I think it’s another one of those “the few men at the top make out like bandits, and everyone else is screwed” cases.

I will resist the urge to get into Oppression Olympics, though it’s really hard, and merely point out that there’s been some interesting writing done about this phenomenon within America’s Mormon church.

I will resist the urge to get into Oppression Olympics, though it’s really hard

Honestly, this sentence itself is an implied Oppression Olympics argument.

But just to note: I wasn’t intending to imply that the level of harm is the same. Just that there was harm. i.e. it’s not a system that “benefits men”. It’s a system that “benefits a few men, and harms everyone else to varying degrees”.

Holy shit, Schala, you’re totally right. Color me shocked. Sorry about that. I’ve literally never encountered “polygamy” used to indicate “many men to one woman”, and every time I have encountered it, it’s described a culture in which polygyny was allowed/encouraged but not polyandry.

I agree with you, but you shouldn’t tell it to me, you should tell it to the entire developing world. I’m really good at words. My point was that if I can get confused about the meaning of a word — especially a word related to sexuality — then it’s not being applied properly in the world.

I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive, which is why that headline is fascinating. It really shows how the idea of “culture” is used to protect fucked-up dynamics in those areas, especially by patriarchal assholes. There’s this whole idea that if something is cultural then it’s immune to criticism — preserving culture is obviously important, but having a situation where anyone who criticizes cultural mores is attacked as un-African has obvious problems, and obviously favors the classes of people who traditionally have more power (eg, men).

As I wrote, “I’ve found that when the only partnership alternatives are seen as abandonment and/or deadbeat fatherhood, cheating, or overt polygamy, then even empowered women will argue in favor of polygamy—though not happily.”

David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that doesn’t provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.

@Motley — I think much of the general privilege men have is worth acknowledging even here. In Africa? It’s massive, even for “lower status” men.

@machina — Yes, quite fascinating that some men have argued that polygamy benefits women :P I wonder if they talked to any actual women. I seem to recall a note in the book Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women? — though I don’t recall which essay — in which a Westerner asserted something similar to the Wikipedia quote, to a woman who lived in an actual polygynous society. The woman from the polygynous society was stunned that Western theorists had decided that she was benefiting from the system, and said: “No WOMAN likes polygamy.” (her use of the word “polygamy”, not mine)

I must admit, the discussion of polygyny reminds me of the halloween party I went to this year, with most of the girls going after just one or two guys.

Not having much knowledge of the actual issues involved with polygyny in real societies (so take this with a large grain of salt), it strikes me that as long as women are free to choose who they marry, and as long as additional parties cannot enter into an existing marriage without the consent of all the people already in that marriage, it’s largely women’s problem. They could choose to enter a polygynous marriage or not.

But I’m guessing neither of those are the case. Women are perhaps not free to choose who they marry. And even when they are, they can be tricked into polygyny due to the husband marrying additional women later.

So yeah, I can see how that could easily lead to a great deal of nastiness.

David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that doesn’t provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves.

It speaks largely in terms of economics. Which kind of erases the idea that men are simply desirable in-and-of themselves, and that women can desire men just because they are desirable in-and-of themselves.

In a way this seems to link back to toxic male sexuality, because that same erasure is common in a lot of discussion of male sexuality. This idea that men need to provide something other than just themselves in order to be desirable (whether that be wealth or being especially good in the sack or whatever).

For every person saying that no person could possibly like something there’s probably at least 0.01 people who like that something though. This is like the anti-sex work debates though, and it seems to come down to the coercive and sexist forces on women verses notions of liberality. Not to call you Gail Dines or anything, Clarisse.

Anyway, I heard a glowing radio review of the novel The Lonely Polygamist a while back, best book of the year so far for the reviewer. Here’s a little article by the writer:

I like this part: ‘Years ago a grizzled polygamist asked me why it was socially acceptable for Hugh Hefner to keep a harem of nubile hotties–all young enough to be his granddaughters–while he was considered a criminal under the law for formally marrying and committing himself to his three wives for life. I had no answer for him.’

I mean … look, of course some women are going to find happiness in a polygynous (often indicated by the word polygamous) system, but saying that this is an argument for polygyny is like saying that before women had the right to vote, some women said they preferred influencing their husbands to actually having the vote, therefore women shouldn’t have the right to vote. (And yes, some women said that.) For comparison: I know men who are involved with multiple women in the polyamory world, some with explicitly negotiated restrictions on what the women can do but none on the man. This is obviously okay, because those people have options and can negotiate. But in polygyny (which is actually what’s going on in the vast majority of “polygamous” societies, including USA Mormons, and sub-Saharan Africa), there is no parallel system and therefore no similar ability to negotiate.

One of my personal favorite conversations in Africa took place in a police station where I was interviewing the police, a few male, one female. The interview concluded and one of the men made the predictable comments about how he wanted me to be his third wife. I smiled and tried to laugh it off because I knew the conversation might get heated, and the policewoman said something like, “Hey, it’s our culture, you can’t reject it like that.” To this I replied, “I will be his third wife if he allows me to have many husbands.” And everyone was completely shocked and confused at what I’d said. I thought that was interesting on about ten thousand different levels.

I obviously won’t condemn anyone’s choices, including those of women who make a perfectly good life for themselves in polygynous systems (for example, I am not very concerned about the thirteen wives of King Mswati III of Swaziland, although there are many things about their lives that I would not enjoy, such as constant surveillance). Where Gail Dines and I differ, I suppose, is in where we see the lines of choice happening and where the lines of social coercion. Gail Dines is interested in asserting things about the choices people make, whether they actually make their own choices and whether society should try to prevent them from making choices “we” think are bad. I think this line of argument is the wrong approach. I think the correct line of argument is about trying to give people tools to negotiate the societies they find themselves in, to deconstruct those societies, and to remove institutional barriers to choice where those institutional barriers exist (such as polygyny).

One of my personal favorite conversations in Africa took place in a police station where I was interviewing the police, a few male, one female. The interview concluded and one of the men made the predictable comments about how he wanted me to be his third wife. I smiled and tried to laugh it off because I knew the conversation might get heated, and the policewoman said something like, “Hey, it’s our culture, you can’t reject it like that.” To this I replied, “I will be his third wife if he allows me to have many husbands.” And everyone was completely shocked and confused at what I’d said. I thought that was interesting on about ten thousand different levels.

Yeah, that’s quite interesting.

It seems that a system that allows polygyny ought to allow polyandry.

I think the correct line of argument is about trying to give people tools to negotiate the societies they find themselves in, to deconstruct those societies, and to remove institutional barriers to choice where those institutional barriers exist (such as polygyny).

Agreed.

I guess, perhaps, where you and I differ is that I don’t see polygyny itself as being such a barrier. I mean, there are a lot of things wrong with the pornography and sex worker industries, for example. Lots of exploitation and bad shit goes on there. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to say “Sex work and pornography are evil, and we should protect women from them!” I think, rather, it’s appropriate to deconstruct the underlying problems that create abusive situations and that prevent people from being able to freely choose and negotiate.

I’m looking at polygyny the same way. I don’t doubt that polygyny as it exists in the world today is harmful and has lots of problems. But I don’t see how that’s inherent to polygyny. And I think it is valuable to separate that out.

It also just occurred to me that this might be a language issue. I’m interpreting the term “polygyny” as additive. e.g. polygyny + polyandry = polygamy. So a society that is properly polygamous in both directions could accurately be described as polygynous and polyandrous.

I’m getting the impression that you’re viewing the term “polygyny” as restrictive. e.g. a properly polygamous society in both directions cannot be described as polygynous or polyandrous.

My wife and I are obviously in a primary relationship with each other – but we have a secondary relationship with another girl. Now we’ve given this girl a ring, she lives with us, she is very much a third partner – but her relationship is very primarily with my wife. The girlfriend is predominantly not into guys so the cursory relationship between myself and the girl is closer to the relationship of say two men, where at least one of them was predominantly heterosexual – than the typical fantasy image of a two girl threesome.

I don’t imagine that our dynamic is by any means common – but my inner word geek is struggling to quantify and label the dynamic. Are we Polygynous? Polyandrous? Just Poly? Confusing and possibly weird?

I’m also wondering if a relationship with three people of the same gender (one man having many spouses, or one person having many husbands in the male case, or one woman having many spouses, or one spouse having many ‘wives’) draws the same terminology? Or should there be some other word for that (lucky? awesome?)

Also – as a guy in a relationship with two girls – It’s really hard to talk about that dynamic without it being weird. I’m uncomfortable socially talking about my wife and not mentioning our third partner – they’re both important to me and etc – but in a vanilla context, or even in most middle ground contexts like an internet discussion – it seems almost impossible to talk about the whole thing without coming off as a gloating douche.

For an interesting discussion of polygyny and hypergamy, check out F. Roger Devlin’s essay Sexual Utopia in Power.

Ignore Devlin’s conservative slant and discussion of rape (which is horribly wrong and confused, but not in interesting ways; in fact, just entirely skip the date rape section and the “from sexual anarchy to sexual terror” section). Also ignore his random swipes at women and Schopenhauer quotes. Also, assume for sake of argument that his empirical claims about hypergamy are correct. We also will need to transform some of his theses into slightly weaker versions for them to make sense.

Devlin argues that polygyny sucks for everyone, and that it is a typical consequence of women’s preferences. Let’s look at some interesting quotes from his argument:

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of male conservatives: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them.

[…]

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisﬁed with the best. By deﬁnition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top. Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance ﬁction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

Women focusing on one man is a bit of an exaggeration; a more likely sort of hypergamy would be women focusing on the top X% of men in their subculture, or on men at a higher rank of attractiveness than her (e.g. women in the 60th percentile of attractiveness chasing men at the 70th percentile).

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may
be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is ﬁckle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner’s humorous story “I Can’t Breathe”—the private journal of an eighteen year old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of “sex partners,” she would presumably respond one; this does not mean she has any idea who it is.

An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males. Women are not so much naturally modest as naturally vain. They are inclined to believe that only the “best” (most sexually attractive) man is worthy of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “real” man—until, one day…etc.).

Get rid of the swipes about fickleness and vainness, and this is an interesting theory.

People speak as if the male sexual utopia of a harem for every man has actually been realized. It is child’s play to show that this cannot be true. There is roughly the same number of male as female children (not quite: there are about 5 percent more live male births than female—there is not a girl for every boy.) What happens when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate for wives, but many women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a very few exceptionally attractive men. These men, who have always found it easy to get a mate, now get multiple mates.

Of course, the polygynous dynamics Devlin describes apply to dating in general, not just marriage.

Furthermore, Devlin describes both men and women as being in a state of desperation. I think he is starting to capture how polygyny sucks for everyone.

In his model, women are desperate for men at the top, and men who aren’t are the top are desperate for any women. To put it in my less-extreme model, his theory would suggest that women at the 60th percentile of attractiveness are desperate for men at the 70th percentile, while men at the 60th percentile are desperate for women in the 60th percentile. Meanwhile, if you’re a guy at the 70th percentile of attractiveness, you want a woman who is at least at the 70th percentile, but all those women are ignoring you in favor of men at the 80th percentile.

For everyone: “what you want you can’t get, and what you can get, you don’t want.”

Of course, real life isn’t this stark because people can’t be ranked completely on one dimension of attractiveness. That’s why Devlin’s literal view of women all going for men at the top is obviously not true. However, there is a high enough correlation between women’s preferences that they often target the same group of men at the top within any given subculture, so many of the dynamics Devlin observes do emerge in weaker ways.

Once monogamy is abolished, no restriction is placed on a woman’s choices. Hence, all women choose the same few men. If Casanova had 132 lovers it is
because 132 different women chose him. Such men acquire harems, not because they are predators, but because they happen to be attractive. The problem is not so much male immorality as simple arithmetic; it is obviously impossible for every woman to have exclusive possession of the most attractive man. If women want to mate simply as their natural drives impel them, they must, rationally speaking, be willing to share their mate with others.

But, of course, women’s attitude about this situation is not especially rational. They expect their alpha man to “commit.” Woman’s complaining about men’s failure to commit, one suspects, means merely that they are unable to get a highly attractive man to commit to them; rather as if an ordinary man were to propose to Helen of Troy and complain of her refusal by saying “women don’t want to get married.”

But by the 1930s millions of women were watching Cary Grant two hours
a week and silently comparing their husbands with him. For several decades since then the entertainment industry has continued to grow and coarsen. Finally the point has been reached that many women are simply not interested in meeting any man who does not look like a movie star. While it is not possible to make all men look like movie stars, it is possible to encourage women to throw themselves at or hold out for the few who do, i.e., to become sluts or spinsters, respectively. Helen Gurley Brown raked in millions doing precisely this. The brevity of a woman’s youthful bloom, combined with a mind not yet fully formed at that stage of life, always renders her vulnerable to unrealistic expectations. The sexual revolution is in part a large-scale commercial exploitation of this vulnerability.

Yes, men are also, to their own detriment, continually surrounded with images of exceptionally attractive women. But this has less practical import, because—to say it once more—women choose. Even plain young women are often able to obtain sexual favors from good-looking or socially dominant men; they have the option to be promiscuous. Many women do not understand that ordinary young men do not have that option.

[…]

One would get the idea looking at Cosmopolitan magazine covers that women were obsessed with giving men sexual pleasure. This would come as news to many men. Indeed, the contrast between what women read and their actual behavior towards men has become almost surreal. The key to the mystery is that the man the Cosmo-girl is interested in pleasing is imaginary. He is the afﬂuent fellow with moviestar looks who is going to fall for her after one more new makeover, after she loses ﬁve more pounds or ﬁnds the perfect hairdo. In the meantime, she is free to treat the ﬂesh-and-blood men she runs into like dirt. Why make the effort of being civil to ordinary men as long as you are certain a perfect one is going to come along tomorrow?

I don’t quite agree with Devlin that women are typically treating men “like dirt.” I would state a slightly weaker version of his thesis: women are commonly treating average men as invisible, including average women.

If Devlin is correct that women are hypergamous (in the strong sense of only wanting men at the top, or the weaker sense of wanting men slightly higher up), then I think he’s made a compelling argument that the fulfillment of women’s attraction preferences would result in polygyny. There are only so many men who are higher up in attractiveness; if every woman dates a guy who is higher ranked in attractiveness, women are going to have to do a lot of sharing. Men at the top are only too happy to be shared, to the detriment of other men.

Of course, while women getting to share pieces of highly attractive men might satisfy their sexual preferences, the sharing of men and competition over them can have other negative consequences. Meanwhile, men who aren’t so high up in attractiveness get ignored.

This system is full of suck for everyone except the guys at the top. This is a pattern we’ve seen before.

I agree with Clarisse that providing people with a choice of what kind of society they’d like to live in. I don’t think this solves the problems that liberalism has acting within any inequitable or oppressive society, which is all of them, but it at least lets people choose their oppression.

The commonality with both the policewoman and Devlin is that they are invoking group identities, the policewoman her African culture and Devlin his Western one. Both are reinforcing universal social structures that obstruct building creating a pluralist society that allows people the choice of how they live.

““Hey, it’s our culture, you can’t reject it like that.” To this I replied, “I will be his third wife if he allows me to have many husbands.” And everyone was completely shocked and confused at what I’d said.”

To me that sounds like “yeah, we know it’s wrong but we’re still gonna do it”. Your reply is awesome!

Scootah,

interesting dynamics. I imagein that explaining such things will be difficult.

Hugh,

I don’t think anyone here would disagree that women have it easier to obtain casual sex if they chose to. If you don’t assume that people are completely socially forced to do exhibit preferences they don’t actually have at all, there’s a simple reason female sexuality has a price (prositution is usually going that way), and that reason is: demand is higher than supply. And even here, I’d say that men do discriminate to a degree. Would you have sex with a 2/10 on your scale just because she offered? You may be *less* disciminatory for casual sex than for a longer relationship, but I’d say you’d still be discriminating. So, I suppose that’s also some kind of an answer to the question whether there is no such think as “bad sex” for men… ;)

But I think that kind of casual sex is where pure/mostly female choice ends, and that may well be, I think I mentioned this before, what is differentiating humans from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom – humans have mutual choice for relationships *and* a generally small polygyny factor. Much of the standard indicators of female choice aren’t present in humans – men aren’t significantly more ornamented than women, most people would say the opposite is true in humans – we believe women are the “fairer” sex. That’s diffirent in species with strict female choice – female in those species tend to be plain compared to the males because they don’t need to compete, they can choose. Now, I’m not denying human interest in mating at the top. But I think that interest is *mutual*. Both men and women are looking for good and compatible genes, and for pleasurable sex.

We are just following different scripts to get there. And often, those scripts are dysfunctional, and sometimes, the supposed liberation adds addtional problematic unintended consequences – say hello to Giddens.

I believe that women are as able to see through those dynamics as men are – that is: most aren’t and some are.

@Hugh — It’s really hard to ignore the grossness of that source, and it’s also kind of hard not to get pissed off at some of your thoughts on it, but I think you’re generally a reasonable guy, so I’ll do my best ….

Get rid of the swipes about fickleness and vainness, and this is an interesting theory.

Interesting, yes, I suppose, … and how is it different from what men do? Have we forgotten that there’s an entire genre of movies that encourages men to think that they can be unmotivated douchebags and still totally deserve to get the girl? (classic example being “Wayne’s World”, which I think is funny, but still demonstrates my point)

Is there any evidence whatsoever that men don’t also go after women in “higher percentiles”, and consider themselves to “deserve” women in “higher percentiles”? And what do you even mean when you talk about men being at the top? Because if men are at the top because they get women, that’s circular. Isn’t one of the big things in PUA-dom the point that guys don’t actually need money or traditional types of status to get women, just confidence and charisma? Which are the same things that, you know, women need to get men?

Even plain young women are often able to obtain sexual favors from good-looking or socially dominant men; they have the option to be promiscuous.

Yeah, as long as “sexual favors” is 100% defined as “what men typically want out of sex” rather than “what women typically want out of sex”, this is marvelously true. Amazingly, that definition doesn’t work very well for women. Asshole men are always bitching about how women have sooo much more access to sex than men, but women don’t actually want the kind of sex that men want (or act like they want), and as a result women are considerably less promiscuous than men.

The idea that women are influenced by romantic comedy-type movies to want unrealistic relationships is not new. Men are also arguably influenced by porn to want unrealistic relationships. Watch out for that line of argument ….

Devlin’s such an asshole that I can’t even look at that comment without getting angry. If you want to talk about those ideas, fine, but please don’t quote him here again.

@Sam — To me that sounds like “yeah, we know it’s wrong but we’re still gonna do it”. Your reply is awesome.

Thanks. It became my stock reply and created a sensation every time. Other observations along the same lines (“yeah, we know it’s wrong but we’re still gonna do it”) are available in my last Kink On Tap interview.

Interesting, yes, I suppose, … and how is it different from what men do?

Because women are pickier than men. Men are pickier about looks; women are pickier about practically everything else. There’s a bunch of research on this subject that would take a while to summarize, but start with John Tierney from the NYTimes.

Since women are more selective than men, it means that to the extent that women’s preferences overlap, women will be competing over a smaller group of men. Since women are pickier, they will be competing over the most attractive members of the opposite sex more fiercely than men will. And then you have polygyny.

Have we forgotten that there’s an entire genre of movies that encourages men to think that they can be unmotivated douchebags and still totally deserve to get the girl? (classic example being “Wayne’s World”, which I think is funny, but still demonstrates my point)

Couldn’t part of the reason these movies are funny be their lack of realism?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that men don’t also go after women in “higher percentiles”, and consider themselves to “deserve” women in “higher percentiles”?

Anecdotally, everyone wants to date up. But since women are more selective, it’s more feasible for women to do so.

And what do you even mean when you talk about men being at the top? Because if men are at the top because they get women, that’s circular.

In that case, I’m talking about the top percentiles of attractiveness. The theory is that women date men in a way that is more skewed towards men at the top, while men are more willing to settle. Whether that theory is supported is another question, but it’s an interesting theory.

Isn’t one of the big things in PUA-dom the point that guys don’t actually need money or traditional types of status to get women, just confidence and charisma? Which are the same things that, you know, women need to get men?

The theory in pickup is that women just on money or traditional status in the absence of confidence and charisma, but that those qualities are bigger components of women’s preferences (particularly in middle-class populations where differences in money don’t have a big impact on survival).

Yeah, as long as “sexual favors” is 100% defined as “what men typically want out of sex” rather than “what women typically want out of sex”, this is marvelously true. Amazingly, that definition doesn’t work very well for women.

Sexual favors doesn’t mean “good sexual favors,” so Devlin’s statement is true. He leaves out the important possibilities that casual sex may be less enjoyable for women, particular socially dominant men’s interest in pleasing women they regard as plain.

But due to the difference in selectivity that lets women of lower ranks of attractiveness get with guys at higher ranks, there is quite a bit of competitive for men at high ranks of attractiveness. Even though men at lower ranks of attractiveness would like to get with women at higher ranks, those women won’t consider those guys. Hence, polygyny.

The idea that women are influenced by romantic comedy-type movies to want unrealistic relationships is not new. Men are also arguably influenced by porn to want unrealistic relationships. Watch out for that line of argument ….

Yet since women are more selective and men are less selective, men will drop their unrealistic expectations a little quicker.

Devlin’s such an asshole that I can’t even look at that comment without getting angry. If you want to talk about those ideas, fine, but please don’t quote him here again.

I guess it’s kind of like you dropping Dworkin or MacKinnon on me all of a sudden. Which would be fine with me, but I’m not going to say that anyone should be prepared to deal with someone so far across the spectrum being dropped on them at the drop of the hat.

I’ll stop quote Devlin here at your request, and I only did so because his paper was quite relevant to the topic of polygyny. If it’s indeed true that women are more selective and some form of female hypergamy exists, then some uncomfortable scenarios will occur (everyone will be in a situation of “what you want, you can’t get, and what you can get, you don’t want”).

The interesting idea that Devlin suggests is that polygyny is the inevitable consequence when both genders are allowed to mate freely without some social enforcement of monogamy or arranged marriage. This explains why polygyny occurs in so many places despite documented harms to women: it serves women’s interests in some ways (e.g. attraction), but not in other ways.

Perhaps, instead of referencing Devlin and telling you to ignore half his paper, his tone, and his biases, I should have just started from my own analysis of the research on selectivity, hypergamy, and polygyny. Then people would be able to see more easily why we should care about certain possibilities. Though I’m still compiling that research, and it’s hard for me to wait to discuss these subjects until then.

The theory is that women date men in a way that is more skewed towards men at the top, while men are more willing to settle. Whether that theory is supported is another question, but it’s an interesting theory.

Even if this is true at younger ages (and I’m not sure that it is), the biological clock effect plus women aging out of desirability faster balances it out.

Okay, now that I’m less upset and triggered, I feel a lot more okay about the theory. I’m not convinced, though. I have some other thoughts about it that are unclear and that I may parse out sometime.

Are women are more selective on a speed date on factors other than looks simply because they use speed dating to find long term partners more than men? This seems a fairly likely explanation to me on the face of it. I suspect men who are genuinely looking for long term partners to be discriminating on the basis of a much broader range of characteristics than looks.

In any case, given that polygyny, that is multiple wives or at least long term partners, is fairly rare in the US it is paradoxical to claim that a common dating behaviour leads to an uncommon mating behaviour.

but even so, that seems like a decent model of real life experience. My theory is that men are usually mostly concerned with looks, will be generally interested in most women above their looks-threshold, and will only later look at other criteria. This, of course, assumes that speed-dating is usually bringin together people of similar socio-economic background and not random people. So, all this is already happening on top of a certain homogamy basis. I mean, yeah, well, Woody Allen’s “Whatever Works” is nice and marginall more inspiring than romance novel pulp fiction, but usually, a 65yo misanthrop author from NYC and a 19yo dumb blonde from rural Alabama (or so) won’t mate, because they will never meet, not even in a speed date, and not online. I think a certain level of homogamy is always implicit in such experiments and that kind of self-selection probably isn’t apparent in the data.

“is fairly rare in the US it is paradoxical to claim that a common dating behaviour leads to an uncommon mating behaviour.”

why? There’s a difference between open and hidden mating patterns. I think historically – and we’ve looked at that aspect before – only about 50% of men reproduced, while nearly all women did. That pattern seems to have changed with the moden core family and social control, and may go back to the historical average. So there is a puzzle. I don’t think that female and male biological mating preferences have changed at all, we’re just up against different social structures.

My theory is that men are usually mostly concerned with looks, will be generally interested in most women above their looks-threshold, and will only later look at other criteria.

I don’t disagree that men are more interested in looks by certain studies but rather that you need to be careful drawing conclusions from studies.

If all people focus on looks when seeking hook ups, and if all people are less focused on looks when seeking long term partners while being more selective overall due to a greater number of other requirements in a partner, then an individual, and genders in general, will appear to be more or less selective as well as more or less focused on looks dependent on their goals.

why? There’s a difference between open and hidden mating patterns. I think historically – and we’ve looked at that aspect before – only about 50% of men reproduced, while nearly all women did. That pattern seems to have changed with the moden core family and social control, and may go back to the historical average. So there is a puzzle. I don’t think that female and male biological mating preferences have changed at all, we’re just up against different social structures.

I don’t think we’ve been talking about hidden mating patterns. Also, there are different ways that differing variabilities in productive rates can occur, off the top of my head head: serial monogamy, cheating, sexual anarchy.

It sounds a bit as though you’re thinking that biological mating preferences are asocial or that they emerged in some uniform social structure. Yet there’s a great deal of diversity in existing social structures around relationships. This is the case to probably an even greater degree in pre-civilisation societies, many of which have much more complicated kinship systems than the nuclear family.

I recently participated in an energetic listhost discussion about some really gross economic arguments around sexuality (similar to Devlin’s) and I thought that a couple of the comments there would be interesting to repost here.

The first is from a male literary critic friend of mine, and depends on people having read Pride and Prejudice and requires people to understand the difference between the “commodity model” of female sexuality and the “performance model”. I hope that doesn’t mean that no one on this thread can read it :P

::::::::::

That novel is all about the commodification of desire! Its famous opening line, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife,” could be the motto of the commodity model of sexuality. Of course the line was based on the assumption that there was no sex outside of marriage. Today we’d have to update it to “must be in want of a hookup.”

But as usual Austen is being slightly ironic. This so-called universal truth is one of the many “prejudices” that the novel will debunk. The novel’s plot, retold as an allegory of the commodity model of sexuality, is something like this:

– Elizabeth (like most Austen heroines) is a young woman so perceptive that she ends up missing a lot of obvious things. She is smart enough to see that there is a great deal of bullshit in the way her society talks about love. In fact, she perceives, in a society where property is dispersed according to primogeniture and there is very little room for entrepreneurship, people’s personal qualities play less of a role in matchmaking than what they and their relatives own, since marriage and death are almost the only ways in which property can change hands. (The other way is gambling.) Her family is in a unique situation: her father has a large estate but he is in ill health and has only daughters. The estate can only pass to a male heir for some obscure legal reason. Thus there is a chance that the first man to marry one of his daughters might get the whole estate — and the daughters have become hot commodities.

– Elizabeth’s sister Jane thinks this is great, because now she has a ton of leverage in the marriage market and can attract a husband who already has his own large estate, so she will be very rich. Elizabeth thinks this is shitty because it will be impossible for her to marry for love, since all the bachelors will now say anything to get in her skirt/wallet and she will never be able to tell true love from false. Since she has so much “pride,” she only wants to be with a man who actually respects her as a person.

– Mr. Darcy, meanwhile, is already extremely rich, so rich that Elizabeth’s father’s estate is small potatoes. So like Elizabeth he fears that he can never marry for love. Both he and Elizabeth want to see themselves in something like the performance model of love (since this is a genteel Regency novel the performance is conversation and dancing rather than sex itself), but fear that they are trapped in the commodity model.

– The usual series of comedic events ensues — overheard conversations, intercepted letters, etc. — and Elizabeth and Darcy each discover that the other is not interested in raising their socioeconomic status, and would even sacrifice social and economic opportunities rather than act against their true feelings. That is, they discover that they want to participate in a performance-modeled relationship, not a commodity-modeled one. Having established that, they can marry for love, which they do. But Elizabeth also gets richer than even her sister Jane, who was the one trying to game the system all along.

Elizabeth makes a generalization about a prejudice — the commodity model — that she assumes is true of everyone except herself, but it turns out that that assumption is itself based in false pride, since it does not apply to Darcy. But Austen doesn’t hate the commodity model as much as Elizabeth, and this is where the novel’s irony is most interesting. Austen was always somewhat critical of the figure of the modern individual as truth-telling social misfit. She implies that Elizabeth’s preference for the performance model is itself based on a higher-order market process involving the modern ego, which has an insatiable need to be praised and to feel superior to others. Elizabeth’s rejection of the commodity model, in which people are treated as relatively interchangeable cogs, is actually a strategic maneuver to prevent catastrophic inflation in this higher-order market. To find true happiness, which she eventually does, her pride must first be broken so that her ego’s demand will go away. Darcy accomplishes this by showing his superiority to her and convincing her to be somewhat servile. Once that’s done, Elizabeth, made wiser by her experiences, takes her place comfortably within the commodity model and lives happily ever after.

I realize that the off-topic ranger has just ridden again, but I think this account of the novel does raise some productive questions about the interpenetration of economic and non-economic models. Economic models rest on psychological assumptions and are used by people for distinct emotional purposes from which they cannot be entirely separated. But people who resist particular economic models in the name of opposed emotional purposes may simply be the subjects of a more sophisticated, higher-order economic model pertaining to those purposes. I think that Austen believes we can go around and around this cycle for ever.

Disclaimer first: I’ve never taken even one economics course, so it’s probable that I can’t parse economic models as well as just about anyone else on this list. I have thought rather extensively about the implications of certain kinds of scarcity for how people behave sexually, though. (It’s almost impossible to be a smart BDSMer and not think about this.) I expect that I will write about it at some point. I have obviously also thought about things like “commodity model” vs. “performance model”. I am not opposed to economic discussions of how sexuality works, but I am opposed to economic discussions about how sexuality works that

a. cite gross and unexamined stereotypes as evidence, or use gross and unexamined stereotypes during descriptions/discussion of the theory,
b. don’t acknowledge the effect of that kind of discussion on how people think about sexuality.

Bonus: c. I strongly prefer that economic discussions about how sexuality works acknowledge that there could be other ways of considering sexuality and give some space to discussing those as well.

What bothers me about most economic discussions of sexuality is that they tend to be written by cis, het, male, embittered economists who are more focused on making snide comments about women than seeking a better world. However, it is possible for people to create more sophisticated economics-influenced critiques that aren’t a thin excuse to insult women, as that awesome analysis of Pride And Prejudice shows. The question I see it raising is, can we actually ever escape economic models, and are those of us who talk about doing so merely engaging in comforting or even more market-driven behavior? It’s impossible for me, for example, to deny that my discussion and analysis of sexuality frequently acts in itself to raise my sexual market value. How does this influence my motivations? I’m not sure.

tend to be written by cis, het, male, embittered economists who are more focused on making snide comments about women than seeking a better world.

Heh, as a former economics major, I say with some confidence that Economists are for the most part accountants who failed the personality test. The vast majority of people who do more than scrape a pass in introductory economics to meet a requirement for their major are cis, het males who wouldn’t look out of place in Comp Sci, Engineering or Physics departments.

The popularity of Freakonomics and some of the less idiotic discussions by frattire popular economists like Tucker Max have added some ‘cool’ to economics majors – but in most universities around the world – econ classes after econ 1 and econ 2 are a sausage fest full of geeks.

Economics is a weird blend of statistics, psychology and a lot of fluffy middle ground. But a lot of the theory on decision making rationale, like Utility, Supply and Demand modeling, and Game Theory (particularly Prisoner’s Dilemma and Zero Sum) concepts are all highly applicable to sexuality and the whole mating dance idea. The wikipedia links are a pretty good place to start reading.

Is this the same literary critic friend who pointed to or wrote the Stendhal/PUA/love story you linked to at some point (in ancient history of this thread)?

I think it’s important to actually define better what is meant with commodity and performance model. I think what your friend refers to with commodity model has not much to do with the definition used by Thomas Millar. See my and your comments above –

The Austen commodity model is about value that is unrelated to sexuality, as is the variable she’s hoping will overcome the commodity model – love. I think from an economic history perspective the victory of love as both only justification for marriage is quite interesting and its social embeddedness and consequences aren’t well understood.

The structure of the question is similar, though: Is there something that is absolute, not accessible by economics, not tradable, not tainted by strategy. It’s the question about the true nature of the deontological in the human nature. And no one knows.

Elizabeth is certainly behaving just like the modern feminist woman in the Foster-Wallace interview. But while Elizabeth is looking for love to attribute transcendence to her commercial value, the modern double-bound feminist woman is looking for love to attribute transcendence to her sexuality.

“When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.”

What was that about how women go for top-rated men, and men don’t do the same to women?

“Women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.”

So, while it may be true that many women consider most men “beneath them”, women’s actual behavior doesn’t line up with their opinions. Our opinions, I mean. I am a woman, not a social science robot.

What was that about how women go for top-rated men, and men don’t do the same to women?

Point. :-)

(And as a guy, relieving…)

But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

This strikes me as interesting, too.

I’ve had two relationships where, looking back, I’m pretty sure my partner wasn’t actually into me. One of them was explicitly confirmed. The other I’m pretty sure of just based on the weirdness that went on.

A point that I intended to make a while ago, but forgot about, but which seems related to the above quote, is that if a woman is, in fact, just attracted to the “top” men, it’s probably best for her to stick to that. If over time her preferences naturally shift, that’s great. But dating someone she’s not really into isn’t doing anyone favors in the long run (as my experiences on the other side can speak to).

Of course this applies to men, too.

But I guess my point is that even if these things are the case, it’s not entirely clear to me that people intentionally changing their behaviors is actually a good idea. It’s possibly one of these “it sucks, but that’s the way it is” things.

“Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.”

you know what? I think that’s mostly because it’s relatively effortless to do online. I doubt all those messages are actually personalized statements of interest. I would like to have a break down of male/female message volume, I think it would be helpful. My guess is that self-perception doesn’t translate into a more targeted approch because rejection is already priced in and the cost of the marginal/next letter is so low (copy & paste). So men try something here they wouldn’t do if the costs of doing it were higher – like actually walking up to her and say “hello” instead of sending an email with a link to the profile. I think in real life we would see quite a different pattern. I think in real life the most attractive women are the ones most stared at but actually much less approached than women who visually are only a bit above average – I think these women get the most – wanted and unwanted – male attention in real life, while particularly stunning women are often perceived as too scary to talk to. Beauty is intimidating when the rejection is painful. Sending out a standard email already assuming it will be dumped is not scary – it’s like playing the lottery, and the odds are certainly better.

Question is – why are women choosing a different strategy based on the same costs? I think the answer is that they will naturally have a much better reply rate even for targeted, and thus more costly approaches, and thus have less incentive to send spam.

As for personal tastes and beautiful pictures, I think photos are extremely important in this game, and I think that rds858 may actually be more attractive than roomtodance in real life, she’s just a bit older and the photograph is taken with a webcam, I suppose – thus suffering from 26+ age effect discussed earlier and no effect lighting whatsoever. ghosttt may be less attractive than she appears on the picture, as her facial symmetriy isn’t too visible on the picture. Pictures don’t tell the whole story. I once sat opposite of a female friend who was a model at the time. I looked at her, and I looked at the photos of her in front of me and I was looking at two different women. I think it’s absolutely possible to get a picture of ElleSC that looks at least close to that of ghosttt. She’d probably be spammed in that case, though ;)

About the OKCupid thing. Keep in mind MOST guys (the non-models, non George Clooney) send 100s of messages in a month, and get some *replies*.

Women get 100s of messages, and pick, from those messages, who to *reply* to.

In short, very few women send the FIRST message to a man.

I know, because I hardly ever sent messages to guys (on OkCupid and other dating sites), and it’s been a known meme that girls of average attractiveness had enough stuff in their inbox to not need to send first messages. You just read them and choose who to reply to. The only exception being those quivers thing, if people follow the suggestions (I think I might have, once…) – they send you 3 possible profile matches, in high enough %.

Most guys of average attractiveness send 100s of messages, probably to people who match their profile close to the best (or absent interesting/developed profiles, to pictures that appeal to them) and get 5% replies. And about 0-1 first message to them per year.

So the data is not good. It’s apples and oranges. It’s men sending X messages, and women choosing Y messages within X, to reply to. It’s not men sending A and women sending B.

And yeah, guys feel they’re playing the lottery, so why not aim higher than you would have in person, as Sam said. They don’t get better reply rates from average women (it’s so marginal as to be inconsequential – getting 7% chance of reply or 6% chance with a woman you find more attractive…), so they can try a bit higher, same deal.

I wouldn’t complain about lack of messages…I had a ton when I was online. I’d get 5+ a day if I was online. Ask guys how many 1st messages they received, and how many were women replying to messages that these guys had sent hours/days before.

Schala, do you have any links that show data that demonstrate that men message more than women? That’s what I was looking for when I found those pages. (and am still looking for off and on, but I’ve literally burned, like, hours searching for it — this should not be so hard to find!)

Sam, I might be misreading, but doesn’t the graph of approaches by men show that the approaches by men actually peak somewhat before maximal prettiness for women? In other words, the most beautiful women aren’t getting approached as much as the next-to-most-beautiful women. This fits with your theory (which aligns with my experience) that the most beautiful women are somewhat intimidating and therefore get approached less (but at the same time, the most beautiful women are getting approached about as much as average women, and way more than less-attractive women).

(Also, OkC has a whole nother post in which they crunch the data on how to take attractive pictures. Man I love their blog.)

The point is that as opposed to previous assertions, men are still tending to aim past their “bracket”. In this, they are acting similarly to women, although in practice, men’s approach tendencies are actually more out of whack with their “bracket” than women’s are (although it looks like female attitudes about attractiveness may be more out of whack than men’s, which is interesting).

No links, but it’s well-known. I don’t think OkCupid would do such a ‘study’ because it’s a pretty “duh”.

Here is a questionnaire someone posted on a site asking about dating:

So, to the men:
1. How many messages, approximately have you sent?
2. What do you usually mention in your opening message?
3. How many messages have you got responses back?
4. How soon do you take it off OKC (texting, phone calling, IMing, etc)
5. If #4 applies to you, how often do you get responses back with contact information?
6. Out of those responses, how many turned into dates?
7. Have you received any first messages from women?

To the women:
1. How many messages do you get on any given day?
2. How many messages have you responded to?
3. How many of those responses led to dates?
4. Have you ever sent the first message to a guy? If not, why?
5. What do you usually mention in your opening message (given #4 applies to you)
6. How soon do you take it off OKC (texting, phone calling, IMing, etc)
7. If #6 applies to you, how often do you get responses back with contact information?

Notice that it asks men how many they sent, and women how many they received.

It also asks men if they received first messages and women if they sent one.

Might be the experience of that person that the norm is that women send less first messages, receive lots of first messages and vice-versa for men.

I KNOW it’s “duh” but it has been literally impossible to find anything that demonstrates it. Which makes me wonder how “duh” it actually is. I mean, I started from the assumption that it would be very easy to find a link that backed it up, and I haven’t been able to. Can you please link me to where the questionnaire came from?

“doesn’t the graph of approaches by men show that the approaches by men actually peak somewhat before maximal prettiness for women?”

yes, it does. But in real life the curve would be a lot flatter, in my opinion, and the peak would be more to the left, with a peak around 3/3.5, not 4 (out of 5 in this scale).

“men are still tending to aim past their “bracket”.”

Well, I think that’s evolutionarily healthy, while it may, individually, lead to unhappiness. As for the whack, again, I think that you’ll see less and less whack as the psychological costs of rejection rise.

I wonder if female attitudes towards looks has to do with the fact that the male body is not (considered) as beautiful as the female body. So even in scale-equivalent mating (3/3, 5/5), the women would still feel more beautiful than him. The three may be looking for the 3.5 but since the 5 cannot find a 5.5 that she would perceive as equivalent, we’re back to scale equivalence as a base rule. Although, to be honest, I have no idea what women find generally attractive in men. With guys, (and I think we’ve had this above), there’s a common scale and an individual scale. When I’m talking about female attractivity with other men, I’m using the general scale, not my own one in which rsd858 would easily be 1 point above roomtodance. Women don’t seem to have a generalized understanding in addition to their personal scale – except for Johnny Depp, for some reason ;). Seriously, when I’m playing murder, marry, shag and I’m nice and look for what I think are good looking guys the result is usually “oh noooo!” (and then when she points out someone she actually finds attractive, I either don’t see the difference or think he’s less attractive – I don’t know).

I was over 30 when a woman told me “you’re hot” for the first time. It’s not being said often, but it’s much more regularly implied since. Still, I mean, I was visually hotter before, but women didn’t see it to the extent they apparently can now. I’m pretty sure that what they perceive as visual attractivity now is a changed attitude, not more muscle, it’s presentation rather than changed visual substance. And I’m really not complaining.

“Even more so than in real life, where fluid social situations can allow either gender to take the “lead”, men drive interactions in online dating. Our data suggest that men send nearly 4 times as many first messages as women and conduct about twice the match searches.”

“When emailing a real profile, a man can expect a reply about 30% of the time.”

Ant there’s more explaining the rationality of sending spam for men.

“Basically, because the likelihood of reply to each message starts so low, the average man is driven to expand his search to women he’s less suited for and to put less thought (and emotional investment) into each message. Therefore, each new batch of messages he sends brings fewer replies. So he expands his criteria, cuts, pastes, and resends.

In no time, the average woman on the same site has been bombarded with impersonal messages from a random cross-section of men. Then: [she stops checking her mail]”

THANK YOU FOR FINDING THAT SECOND POST. I combed through so many of their posts and finally gave up on finding one that stated this simple fact and now you have found it!

I’m a little surprised that it’s as low as 4 times as many messages being sent by men as women. I mean yes that’s a big difference, but what I always heard from people who use these sites is that women supposedly “never” message. So it’s not like the percentage of women messaging is so vanishingly small as to be irrelevant.

I wonder if female attitudes towards looks has to do with the fact that the male body is not (considered) as beautiful as the female body. So even in scale-equivalent mating (3/3, 5/5), the women would still feel more beautiful than him.

The structure of the question is similar, though: Is there something that is absolute, not accessible by economics, not tradable, not tainted by strategy. It’s the question about the true nature of the deontological in the human nature. And no one knows.

It’s funny that strategy in itself is seen as tainting romantic interaction. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately given how much I obsess about PUAs, and given some particular recent thoughts/discussions with a couple of friends about women’s emotional strategies vs. PUA-style sexual strategies. Social strategy isn’t a bad thing in itself, I don’t think — it’s all in how you use it. I mean, everyone uses some social strategy.

@Schala – About the OKCupid thing. Keep in mind MOST guys (the non-models, non George Clooney) send 100s of messages in a month, and get some *replies*.

I’m an overweight, bald computer geek who majored in economics at university. I’ve NEVER had a problem getting replies. 50%-80% reply rate overall and higher on quality sites.

But my observation is that most guys who suffer with getting replies fall into some obvious traps. Like having pictures of their dick when they should have pictures of their face. If they don’t fall into the dick shot trap, they have awful pictures (either clearly decades out of date or obviously misleading ala the myspace special, looking up at the camera to hide the fat rolls around their neck) or just don’t have any pictures easily available.

Second, they use generic or cut and paste emails that are obviously generic and clearly haven’t been written in response to the profile they’re contacting. Treating women like a life support system for a vagina is an awesome way to never get a reply back – and when you spam every woman on a site with the same message – they know that that’s how they’re being viewed.

Third – most guys suck at communicating on the internet. They’re both awful writers, and not very good at interpreting the unspoken context of another person’s writing. They either come off as idiots, pushy, obtuse or just not compatible. I heard on the radio this morning that there’s an active market for professional writers to build online dating profiles for guys in the UK now. I’m torn between hoping that awesome guys who haven’t got the knack for communicating online get some benefit from it – and thinking that it’s a terribly dishonest way to make yourself appear to be a very different person. But it’s certainly indicative of the way guys struggle to communicate in these channels.

I think there’s also a lot of guys who aren’t very good at spotting fake/disastrous profiles. Profiles that scream fake, script generated, or written by a walking disaster are I think easy to spot and avoid – but a lot of guys I know will still spend a lot of time and energy getting frustrated and depressed because they can’t get the response they want from obvious junk profiles, or profiles that will clearly have no return interest.

The last common trap is that most guys go to internet dating as a last resort, and they’re desperate from the word go. Desperation is fundamentally unattractive to everyone, especially when it comes with a hefty dose of lonely and pathetic – as is so often the case with internet dating. When desperate, lonely and pathetic adds frustrated, sleazy, pushy and rude – it’s no wonder that guys don’t get any interest – but it’s still incredibly commonly the way guys go when they use online dating.

Women get 100s of messages, and pick, from those messages, who to *reply* to.

That’s pretty much a supply and demand thing. Any dating provider will tell you that guys are more into this kind of mechanism – from match maker services to phone dating to internet dating – guys adopt the interface much more heavily than women. Women are less likely to be comfortable with those interfaces so the engagement level is different. With the internet in particular – there was so much history of the internet being a guy thing that even now that almost every girl in the world uses face book – the culture of internet dating is predicated around women being in demand and men being demanding. The only exceptions are terrible – like the sites where you go to meet a Millionaire man (and Craigs list is chastised for encouraging prostitution).

What was that about how women go for top-rated men, and men don’t do the same to women?

The hypothesis is that women’s attention is more skewed towards people at the top percentiles of attractiveness. Unfortunately, this study means “looks” when it says “attractiveness.” Since we already know looks are relatively less important to women in attractiveneess, this study can’t tell us much about the distribution of women’s preferences for attractiveness.

As Sam points out, the ease of messaging matters. When messaging is easy, it really just shows people’s ideal or max preferences, not their actual preferences in real life. Of course men’s max preferences for looks are more skewed than women’s max preferences for looks. That doesn’t tell us much about the hypergamy hypothesis, though.

Reply rates are much more interesting dating about people’s preferences. See the “Message Reply Rates Earned By Sender’s Attractiveness” graph. Basically, women get messaged back more, but genders exhibit similar levels of skew towards messaging back good-looking people.

Men focus on highly attractive women in their Hail Mary passes, but in actual exchanges with women who are talking to them, men’s preferences aren’t so skewed. Highly attractive women get messaged about 200-300% more than medium-attractiveness women, but highly attractive women only get replied to 30% more (65% vs. 50% from the graph). As for men, the most attractive men get messaged around 100% more than medium men, and they get replies 40% more (52% vs 37%).

This data doesn’t tell us much about female hypergamy, except that it doesn’t apply merely to men’s looks. This data does confirm the notion that women are more selective than men (see how men get a lower response rate at every level of attractiveness), though OkCupid may not be the best source of data on that question either, because we don’t know that the gender ratio is even (all these studies just select out even samples of men and women).

When I was on OkCupid, I got messages or winks from women 2-3 times a month. In contrast, when I went out with women from OkCupid and talked about experiences on the website, I found that these women (presumably of a similar rank attractiveness to me) were getting messaged on a weekly or daily basis.

Sam, the “desperation feedback loop” observed in the article you linked to is very interesting.

Basically, because the likelihood of reply to each message starts so low, the average man is driven to expand his search to women he’s less suited for and to put less thought (and emotional investment) into each message. Therefore, each new batch of messages he sends brings fewer replies. So he expands his criteria, cuts, pastes, and resends

The article convinces me that the dynamics on paid dating websites are worse (due to so many inactive profiles), but I think those dynamics still exist on OkCupid. Even though 30% of first messages get a response, an initial response is often polite and meaningless. Men still have a significant conversion funnel from first message to going on a date. For going on a date with someone who actually looks like her pictures, the funnel is even steeper.

You need to trade messages with a certain amount of women to actually get a date with someone you are attracted to. If men were often getting messages from women, then they could use women’s messages to help have conversations with the right amount of women. But they often can’t rely on this. So there is an incentive on men to send more messages.

The disparity between men and women in selectivity can quickly create warped dynamics for both men and women. Paid dating sites are merely one of the most extreme examples of this warping.

Slightly related.
Statistics from Norway (a paper by Kari Skrede – 2004) show that childlessness increases more rapidly among men than among women. Men becomes first time fathers on average 4+ years (for people born in 1970) – this is expected to increase further.

Childlessness increased from 9.3% to 12.6% between women born in 1945 and women born in 1960.
The corresponding number for men are: 16.7% to 25.6%

Men can of course be father after they’re 40, so perhaps this difference between the genders are mainly due to men waiting even longer before having children. However, statistics also showed than men born 1960 or earlier who didn’t have any children when they were 40 was unlikely to have children at all.

The authors of the paper says that they can’t rule out that younger men (born 1965 or later) may to a larger degree than older men be first time parents after turning 40.

However, they also note this:
There is a marked increase in fathers who have children with different women. This will also drive up the number of childless men.

Due to relatively good state welfare support system for mothers and the fact that single motherhood is not the social stigma it used to be have given women a larger autnonomi regarding establishing a family (having children). At the same time due to labour marked changes (fewer blue collar jobs) the provider ability of younger men has decreased and they have relatively less economic resources than men from the 1950 and 1960 generation.

This among other factors (like the increase in divorce and break-ups in common marriages) have led to a stronger socioeconomic selection into fatherhood for men in the younger cohorts. A more pronounced ‘recirculation’ of eligible men is also a part of the picture.

Searching for this statistics in my previous comment I came upon this quote by John R. Gillis from an article in a norwegian women studies magazine in 1995:
“(…) while it is enough for a mother to be a mother, fatherhood, like so many other sides of modern masculinity, has to be proved.”
(My translation from norwegian to english as I haven’t been able to locate the original quote)

And I wonder if this applies generally to femininity and masculinity. That a man have to prove his masculinity while a women by default has her femininity and has to actually disprove it in order to lose it. I am not a woman so it’s hard for me to tell and I’m interested in what you think Clarisse?

You’ll probably bring up make-up and the pressure to use that. I suspect that might be an american thing. Were I live a woman is not seen as un-feminine if she doesn’t use make-up or if she only uses it sparingly.

An anecdote when it comes to dating site.
Back when I were younger and single I used to have a profile on a couple of them. I had a normal profile and I would get messages from women very rarely. But it really didn’t go anywhere so I became less and less active on the site. At one point I did come upon a somewhat substantial amount of money due to some stock options I cashed in at the end of the dot com boom. I considered erasing my profile at that dating site, but for whatever reason I just removed all the text and replaced it with:
“Fat and rich”.

The increase in number if messages from women I received was staggering and quite frankly adversely affected my view on women for a long time. This was compunded by episodes in clubs where I was only approached by women the times one of my mates said too loud that I’ve earned a lot on money on dot com stocks. (I had to ask him to stop doing that – he thought the change in womens interest in us was hilarious). Me it only depressed and I felt likea walking wallet.

I actually had to work consciously with myself to overcome the view of women I got after these episodes.

On another topic, some friends and I were watching “How To Train Your Dragon”. All of us watching it were male. One of my friends, after finishing the movie, said,
“I hate the main character. He’s such a pushover. He never once stands up for himself. I hate him.”

It’s possible that he was just talking about it from a “movie hero” standpoint (i.e. movie heroes shouldn’t be pushovers). But I don’t think so. At least not entirely.

In any case, this is an attitude that I’m quite familiar with. As a guy, if you don’t stand up for yourself, the general cultural attitude is that you’re worthy of contempt rather than sympathy. (Although, at least in my social circle, if you’re friends with someone of course they get your sympathy.)

to be honest, I’m not sure a woman who wouldn’t stand up for herself, except, possibly, with respect to physical aggression, would get much sympathy. I think she’d be pitied rather than met with contempt, but I’m not sure one is better than the other.

It’s definitely a control structure that has outlived it practical significance, an artifact lefty lying around and put to new uses.

Before birth control and paternity tests, the only way a man could be assured his offspring belonged to him and not somebody else, was to marry a certified virgin, thus the value of feminine chastity, and the entire institution of sexual politics – the “patriarchy” isn’t so much a social construct as an economic one, but it sounds a lot less noble than “virtue”.

Anyway, in that structure, there is a protected inner circle for the pool of virgins: transgressors would be cast out of this inner circle into the pack of creeps prowling around in the darkness at the edges of the fire- they are there to remind the virgins to guard their virginity, or be “ruined” and transformed into sluts – i.e., lose their social value, based on their economic value.

Of course, traditionally, this has traditionally created a space for affectionate perverts and healthily libidinous women to find each other and live happily ever after, but since this largely logical, economic construct is promulgated and perpetuated by playing on the emotions (virtue, chastity, chivalry, nobility, purity, etc), it tends to be internalized emotionally and somewhat mindlessly and compulsively, rather than logically.

Nowdays, creep and slut are pretty much generally used to describe people you could fuck, but don’t want to, or don’t want somebody else to, for whatever reason, they have little or no real meaning, economic or otherwise, but the old control patterns continue to assert themselves, they have been there for centuries, if not millenia.

But, because they have largely lost their economic implications, substitutes are proposed, “gay” becomes and excuse for economic sanctions and discrimination, again, simple economic competition, and it really makes no difference if you are actually homosexual or not, it’s not actually stamped on anybody’s forehead, it’s just handy way to draw unwanted negative attention away from yourself and onto somebody else.

Unfortunately, with the economy stuck in the mud, and economic competition growing fiercer, such behavior will likely be on the rise, just at the time we should be putting our heads together and co-operating.

So it goes.

Anyway, so much for that part, the transformation part, the part about making space for male sexual, uh… personae, was introduced by Paglia, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the time if I recall, I suggest going back there to start with.

The short version is the Dionysian/Apollonian conversion metaphor – converting raw, primal Dionysian libido into Apollonian art.

i.e., next time a guy leers at you, critique his form: “not so much tongue next time, but the crotch grab was a nice touch”.

I recently had an awesome conversation with the awesome Hazel/Cedar Troost (YMY essay on consent) about how she experienced sexuality before and after transition. Really interesting. She said that testosterone had an unmistakable effect, that she did get turned on more often pre-transition. I especially liked the way she described the other differences. For example, she said that she has to “take care of herself more” in order to feel turned on now — not just in the moment, but in life, and in the relationship. She also said that she has to feel more connected to her partner emotionally. Not just stereotypes, but genuinely hormonal effects? Maybe. She did say that she believes some of the differences in her sexuality now have been caused by simply having the body she wants, though, as per my original theory.

@Tamen — I actually had to work consciously with myself to overcome the view of women I got after these episodes.

Reminds me of an “experiment” I heard about once in which a chubby Black girl changed her dating site profile picture to that of a hot, blonde, White girl. She didn’t change any of the rest of her profile. She proceeded to get approximately ten zillion more messages — a number of which hit on her due to “her appearance”, but many of which hit on her claiming to like her personality. When she revealed what she actually looked like, none of the guys stuck around. She probably had to work consciously to overcome the view of men she got after those episodes. I certainly would.

(Every once in a while I get hit on in the street by guys who are like “I just love how you’re smiling, you got such a bubbly personality!” etc. And I’m always like, “Really? It has nothing at all to do with the fact that I’m mid-twenties and thin and white? Fuck you.” I probably shouldn’t react so strongly, but it’s hard not to at least roll my eyes.)

And I wonder if this applies generally to femininity and masculinity. That a man have to prove his masculinity while a women by default has her femininity and has to actually disprove it in order to lose it. I am not a woman so it’s hard for me to tell and I’m interested in what you think Clarisse?

I do think that it’s easier for men to “lose” their male status than for women to lose their female status. That was talked about in the “Precarious Manhood” paper I cited in the original manliness threads. I’m still thinking about this, but it also feeds into another conversation I had with Hazel, in which she cited a book called Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach by Kessler/McKenna that sounds absolutely freaking amazing. Apparently one of the many findings in that book is that masculinity signals are more powerful than femininity signals — i.e. they count for more when trying to determine someone’s gender — for example, a person who gives off 2 stereotypically masculine signals is signaling their gender with the same strength as a person who gives off 6 stereotypically feminine signals. At least that’s how I understand it. I seriously have to read that book.

@Scootah — But my observation is that most guys who suffer with getting replies fall into some obvious traps. Like having pictures of their dick when they should have pictures of their face.

Yeah, this has always bewildered me. Can someone explain to me why men do this? Like, are there any women with whom this works? I run in pretty non-normative circles and let me tell you, even kinky women are generally puzzled by this behavior.

@xssve — There really is no excuse for misspelling my name. I mean, it’s only on my site 5 million times.

@Sam — thanks for posting that. And yes, folks, the comment thread on that post already features Daran, HughRistik and Sam ;)

“Yeah, this has always bewildered me. Can someone explain to me why men do this? Like, are there any women with whom this works? I run in pretty non-normative circles and let me tell you, even kinky women are generally puzzled by this behavior.”

I can only speculate… maybe exhibitionism?, – psychologically possibly partly related to primal urges to display one’s sexual prowess on the village square when competing with the other men. There aren’t that many visual markers of sexual health/fitness in men that are visible to women in modern society. And whenever I see a guy with a Hummer I a priori assume his penis must be small… so maybe that’s an attempt to take out “the middle man”?

It could be an expression of deeply rooted need for acceptance as sexual beings? Feminists often say that men are considered “neutral” and women are “sexualized”. Sending out penis pictures could be related to a desired perception as sexual being that is usually not fulfilled?

Or maybe they’re hoping that it’s a useful signalling mechanism, selecting only women who are only interested in sex? But I assume you’re not talking about pictures of penises along with other pictures in a profile on a service for sexual relationships.

@Clarisse – I think guys are invested very heavily and from a very early development point in penis size as an indicator of prowess as a sexual being, and from an only slightly later point in the ability to maintain an erection as a secondary indicator. When there are some pressures to maintain anonymity – ie some social taboo’s regarding casual sex focused dating suggesting that a face picture shouldn’t be present, or at least shouldn’t be the primary identifier – but a guy still wants to visually demonstrate his validity as a strong sexual entity – I think a picture of a big hard dick is a relatively short logical leap.

I just wish guys would jerk off a couple of times, get some blood back into their brain and realize that that’s a stupid idea, and take some better photos.

Or alternately, I’m quite glad that most guys are idiots when it comes to internet dating – as an over weight, bald computer geek/economics major with slight aspergers syndrome – anything that makes me look more desirable in a sexual context is probably welcome.

Or alternately, I’m quite glad that most guys are idiots when it comes to internet dating – as an over weight, bald computer geek/economics major with slight aspergers syndrome – anything that makes me look more desirable in a sexual context is probably welcome.

Ha ha ha. I think I’m with you there.

Yeah, this has always bewildered me. Can someone explain to me why men do this?

As with Sam, I can only speculate. But consider that (slut-shaming/protect-our-children aside) women exposing themselves is considered a positive (or at least a desirable) thing. I wonder if there is some frustration or jealousy of that involved. Like, they’re trying to prove to themselves that their body is a positive thing too. If I were to post a picture of my dick, or myself naked, or whatever, it would probably be for such a reason. Knowledge that such a thing would not go over well, however, and a desire to protect my own privacy prevent me, of course. ;-)

For example, she said that she has to “take care of herself more” in order to feel turned on now — not just in the moment, but in life, and in the relationship. She also said that she has to feel more connected to her partner emotionally. Not just stereotypes, but genuinely hormonal effects? Maybe.

I’ve had conversations with women about this before. It is, indeed, hard for me as a guy to relate to having to take care of myself, or be emotionally connected, etc. in order to be turned on. (Although it’s important to make a distinction between being turned on and wanting sex.)

Even in the most stressful periods of my life (and I’ve had some damned stressful periods of notable length), masturbation has been a constant. Whereas I’ve heard from a couple of different women that when their life gets stressed, their sex drive vanishes, and they even stop masturbating. I cannot for the life of me relate to that at all. It’s unfathomable to me.

(On the other hand, I also find it unfathomable how some people avoid physical affection in stressful circumstances. For me, stress generally leads to me wanting more physical contact like cuddles, hugs, etc. because it helps me manage my stress. It makes me feel better.)

My general impression based on such anecdotal conversations is that (in an overlapping bell curves sort of way) women’s sex drive is notably more fickle than men’s. But I wonder if there are any studies on this topic? Does anyone know of any off hand?

In any case, I think in that respect there may be a grain of truth to the “always up for sex” stereotype. The idea of just “not feeling up to sex”, without some reason behind it is pretty foreign to me. The reason can be as innocuous as “I need to get enough sleep tonight” or “I’m in the middle of watching/playing/doing something” or “I need to do such-and-such” or “we’ve had sex 3 times today and I want to do something other than sex with the rest of my day”. But still. It’s easy for me to “get in the mood” if I want to.

Reminds me of an “experiment” I heard about once in which a chubby Black girl changed her dating site profile picture to that of a hot, blonde, White girl. She didn’t change any of the rest of her profile. She proceeded to get approximately ten zillion more messages — a number of which hit on her due to “her appearance”, but many of which hit on her claiming to like her personality. When she revealed what she actually looked like, none of the guys stuck around. She probably had to work consciously to overcome the view of men she got after those episodes. I certainly would.

Both this and Scootah’s story strike me as a case of only really being aware of when something hurts you, rather than other people. It’s easy as a guy to look at some women’s behavior and say, “Gah! Women!”, and likewise as a woman to look at some guys’ behavior and say, “Gah! Men!”. But in reality, we should all be saying, “Gah! Humans!”

Check the followup thread for a similar tangent about “who’s got a higher sex drive” – I think I (but could have been someone else) posted a link to a meta study about sex drive studies that point to men have a more, well, immediate? one (just to avoid the word “stronger”, because it may really be incommensurable, but with respect to the categories of analysis looked at in the studies analysed, the male sex drive seemed stronger in general)…

Clarisse,

“She also said that she has to feel more connected to her partner emotionally. Not just stereotypes, but genuinely hormonal effects? Maybe. She did say that she believes some of the differences in her sexuality now have been caused by simply having the body she wants, though, as per my original theory.”

I’m pretty sure that your theory is right to a degree, but I don’t really understand why having the right body would require more of an emotional connection than not having the right body. The other way around seems more intuitively correct to me – if one is not entirely comfortable in one’s body, I assume one would need a more understanding partner than if one were completely comfortable with one’s body. So, that part of your argument, it seems to me, is actually an argument for the hormonal explanation of the changes in libidinal? preferences.

Check the followup thread for a similar tangent about “who’s got a higher sex drive” – I think I (but could have been someone else) posted a link to a meta study about sex drive studies that point to men have a more, well, immediate? one (just to avoid the word “stronger”, because it may really be incommensurable, but with respect to the categories of analysis looked at in the studies analysed, the male sex drive seemed stronger in general)…

Thanks, I’ll check that out.

I’m pretty sure that your theory is right to a degree, but I don’t really understand why having the right body would require more of an emotional connection than not having the right body. The other way around seems more intuitively correct to me – if one is not entirely comfortable in one’s body, I assume one would need a more understanding partner than if one were completely comfortable with one’s body.

Moreover, if it was a function of being comfortable with one’s body (rather than hormonal/physiological), one would expect the effect to be roughly the same for MTF and FTM. But instead (anecdotally) it seems the effect is opposite.

(Also, if it was a function of comfort-with-one’s-body, that strongly suggests that women are more comfortable with their bodies than men. ;-))

In any case, it could still potentially be a placebo effect, I suppose. But I’d want to see some data before accepting that.

I’m pretty sure that your theory is right to a degree, but I don’t really understand why having the right body would require more of an emotional connection than not having the right body.

Oh — that’s not what I meant. I see that what I wrote was unclear. What she said was that some of the other differences in her sexuality could be put down to feeling more okay in her body, and that it assisted her sexual experience.

“Christ. And men are surprised when women get pissed off and triggered by tangents like that.”

well, we all have stuff that makes it hard to stay calm. The dude who runs that “tiny forum” is evidently in need of therapy. (But you’re also asking men to ignore shrill, radical, militant feminism – why not simply do the same with idiotic stuff like that? Is that more representative of men / men interested in gender discourse, than, say, Mary Daly is of constructive feminism?)

Fair point. I was just trying to give an example of why I got so angry in the previous conversation where some commenters talked about women keeping in mind the effect we can have when we dress in certain ways.

I think the whole topic of clothing/cosmetics as a social tool/signal is really fascinating, though. Aside from people that do not have the financial means to choose how they dress, the way a person dresses does say something about them. Because they choose to dress that way.

The tricky bit is that it often doesn’t say quite what an observer might think it does. Or, conversely, it may not be sending out the message the so-dressed person intended. And this all depends on both the so-dressed person and the observer.

Job interviews are the colloquial example. At an interview with a traditional corporate business, a tie and a nice clean-cut suit sends out a message of responsibility, respect, and status. But that same tie and suit at an interview with a computer game company may well send out a message of “I have a stick up my ass”.

This same sort of dynamic plays out in other situations and settings, too, of course.

Fair point. I was just trying to give an example of why I got so angry in the previous conversation where some commenters talked about women keeping in mind the effect we can have when we dress in certain ways.

Honestly, I think the “women should keep in mind the effects of their mode of dress on men” thing is bizarre.

But, conversely, I also think it’s not really appropriate to be upset when those effects occur (effects do _not_ include rape, harassment, etc., but do include turning heads, and guys attempting to interact with you in a bar/party type setting).

“The more men I talked to, the more sympathetic I felt. I was approaching the biggest epiphany of my life: men had as much anxiety and shame around sex as women did. We were all in this together, and any ideology that couldn’t admit as much was doomed to fail.”

People who deeply distrust the sex industry—who’ve been personally harmed by it or find it threatening or who associate it only with exploitation—often get very angry when escorts (or academics who study sex workers, like Sudhir Venkatesh) claim some clients don’t want sexual interaction.

But it’s true: some don’t. I’ve been hired by men who never asked me to get naked, never requested that I touch their genitals. There’s always conversation, regardless of the other activities during a date: clients talk to me about their parents (especially their fathers) and about failing marriages or life after divorce. They often show me pictures of their children and, sometimes, spouses.

The longer I’ve worked, the more it seems that the sex is often a front. It’s an entry point that allows men to make their real request (for affection, understanding, and connection) while still satisfying stereotypical ideas of masculinity. What most men want is a great romance or, at the very least, a great friendship. They want to feel like they’re falling in love. They want to feel loved in return.

The clients who do want to have sex—and of course, there are many—don’t want that sex to be uncomfortable or unpleasant for me. They want to me to take pleasure in the act as well. They want to feel attractive and competent and gentle and attentive. Many of them are all of those things.

In general, reading through the linked article, I’m shocked at how much better it makes me feel about myself. It continues to surprise me how much hidden shame I have just for being male. And reading things like that make it visible (in a healing way).

Personally, I think he’s generally hilarious. I’m open to hearing the inevitable critiques on this thread, because there’s probably a lot of interesting stuff to be said about the meme as long as we try to keep it civil.

This is only tangentially related to Privilege Denying Dude, but the self-identified feminist guy who stepped up to offer his own photograph to keep the meme going included this in his post:

Since I’m a cis-gendered, white, heterosexual male, I don’t really think I’m very qualified to jump into the “feminist conversation” proper, so instead, I offer my support for the cause, and my smug face for a good laugh.

(Emphasis mine.)

In my experience, this is a view that is expressed quite a bit in the feminist blogosphere: if you’re a guy then you aren’t qualified to speak on gender issues, and you certainly aren’t qualified to critique feminism (even when it’s speaking about men…). And the quote above reminds me so much of myself when I full-on embraced online feminism, largely due to that.

In my experience, this is a view that is expressed quite a bit in the feminist blogosphere: if you’re a guy then you aren’t qualified to speak on gender issues, and you certainly aren’t qualified to critique feminism (even when it’s speaking about men…). And the quote above reminds me so much of myself when I full-on embraced online feminism, largely due to that.

Julian Real is a prime example of this.

from his post:

To believe you are ENTITLED to be able to name yourself as you subjectively wish to, is, at heart, a male supremacist belief if you have had male privileges and have been structurally located as a boy or a man in your life at some point.

He’s saying that he couldn’t EVER identify as a woman and want that respected by others. That trans women who ask to be recognized as women and access to women’s space are displaying “male entitlement”, and as such, shouldn’t ever ask to be recognized or they are showing they are “really male”.

Fun double bind isn’t it?

I replied to this post, but he moderates everything, so I have no idea if it will even be posted.

being a privilege denying dude, I had actually totally missed this meme.

As I said at some point above, I don’t think privilege is a useful concept to see the world through – I don’t think it’s a useful concept for anything but introspection. But it is most often used as a drop in replacement for “shut up” or “you’re wrong because you are x”. I think it’s ironic that those claiming to speak for mariginalized voices are apparently so tied to their privilege of defining who is privileged and what counts as privilege that criticism against its use has to be discounted as backlash, ie, something without not given any merit and hence unworthy of consideration. It is not even considered whether feminism may have become part of a dominant discourse that can pretty arbitrarily declare what’s morally right and wrong, at least for a considerable part of society.

“Privilege Denying Dudes like to imagine that simply because they are reading something they don’t agree with and can’t erase it from the surface of the earth, that is proof of power. That we’re conferred with a sort of de facto currency of marginalization, since we take care to listen to the voices of each other and not those of the privileged. But that currency is exactly like an arcade token – it only applies to these particular spaces. Seeing a marginalized person speak about their own life without regard to how the majority will feel about it can seem like great power, even if they are only asserting their humanity.”

I think it is the conceptual weakness of the concept of privilege itself that causes this intellectual defensiveness. As he notes in defence of the practice (in his defense of the practice) –

“When you first enter Social Justice, you have a lot of moments like this. Over time, you see WHY the rules of engagement in Social Justice spaces have to flow from the positions of least power. Because if we let [Guy who seems to derive all of his self-respect from his denial of racism and sexism] set the agenda, he will declare that privilege doesn’t exist. And if we concede concepts like “Privilege” or “Mansplaining” or “Kyriarchy” or “Rape Culture” or “Systemic Oppression” – if we let those structural concepts and theoretical matrices be taken from us, we must essentially fight every battle from scratch. We would have to treat each individual act of oppression separately, and we’d have no clue how to combat the societal forces that undergird those actions.”

I’d like to think of this satire. Sounds very much like Ephraim Kishon may describe a politburo meeting in the Soviet days: Yeah, sure we could let one person own their business and hire someone to work for him, and that may be useful, but then if he’d want to hire another one, and a third one, then it would be a slippery slope riht into capitalist exploitation.

But Garland wasn’t being satirical, he was talking about discourse politics. He has identified the dimensions of his battle, and he is sticking to them for practical reasons, not because he’s necessarily convinced they’re always correct and fair to everyone, and he doesn’t need to, as he has already identified the answers (the social forces) he needs to fight.

He’s explicitly explaining what privilege is in “social justice” – a framing device for discourse, and not much else.

Of course, it’s great for every social movement to be able to discount complaints as being on the wrong side of history, or morals, or ethnicity, or evolution. It just gets really ironic when this argument is made with respect to “social justice” – we can’t treat individuals fairly now so we can later treat them fairly.

@Cessen, Schala — Oh yeah, I remember noticing that and thinking it was interesting, and meaning to point it out and then forgetting to do so.

In my experience, this is a view that is expressed quite a bit in the feminist blogosphere: if you’re a guy then you aren’t qualified to speak on gender issues, and you certainly aren’t qualified to critique feminism (even when it’s speaking about men…)

The thing is, I think that the theme is overstated. Rarely do I see FEMALE feminists who actually say that men shouldn’t contribute to feminist discourse; I just see MALE feminists who appear to have internalized the idea from a number of other factors. What is actually said by female feminists (and many male feminists, really), almost every time, is that men should be conscious of various factors while participating. You can make arguments about how welcome men are made to feel while doing so, but those are, I think, not really the point here.

(But it is worth saying that I do obviously think it’s important to make men feel welcome. I just don’t think the unwelcomeness is generally coming in — or is intended in — quite the way you guys are reading it. Does that make sense?)

And actually it’s kind of bothersome when male feminists say that they should be there but not participate, because it feels like they’re (to some extent) ceding responsibility. I totally understand their instinct to do so — I have the same instinct about trans issues because I know some trans people who basically continually critique my language, and it gets exhausting and intimidating. But the thing is, being cis, I actually really should try to call out transphobia when I see it, and not throw up my hands and say “But I was so paralyzed by trans discourse, I couldn’t do anything!” Because I have more actual discursive power to make the point than many of them do.

@Sam — As I said at some point above, I don’t think privilege is a useful concept to see the world through – I don’t think it’s a useful concept for anything but introspection.

I’ve quoted you saying that (ask Cessen — it’s in my manliness lecture). But I am realizing now that I disagree with you more than I thought, because while I agree that privilege is not a useful concept to “see the world through”, I don’t agree that it’s only useful for introspection. Doesn’t introspection also owe a debt to people outside ourselves who encourage us to think about things? I’ve learned a lot from people who called me out on my privilege and encouraged me to think about what it might mean.

But it is most often used as a drop in replacement for “shut up” or “you’re wrong because you are x”.

Again, I think this is more often read than stated. I’d be willing to reconsider my perspective if you guys show me a variety of places in which feminists are clearly intending “shut up” rather than “think about where you’re coming from”. (Amanda Marcotte doesn’t count. Okay, I guess she has to count.)

I think it’s ironic that those claiming to speak for mariginalized voices are apparently so tied to their privilege of defining who is privileged and what counts as privilege that criticism against its use has to be discounted as backlash, ie, something without not given any merit and hence unworthy of consideration.

I thought a lot of the PDDs were incredibly funny and perceptive. I didn’t think that any of them said that privilege is not an idea that can be interrogated, they just pointed out a lot of the effects of privilege on discourse. I read the name “privilege denying dude” as intended to indicate someone who won’t own their own privilege, not someone who won’t acknowledge the concept of privilege in general.

He’s explicitly explaining what privilege is in “social justice” – a framing device for discourse, and not much else.

These paragraphs were where I really started disagreeing with you. Do you really believe that privilege is only a framing device? That it’s so conceptually weak that it doesn’t actually have a purpose except to shut people down? I am really surprised. I’m not trying to jump on you, I’m just really surprised.

The thing is, I think that the theme is overstated. Rarely do I see FEMALE feminists who actually say that men shouldn’t contribute to feminist discourse; I just see MALE feminists who appear to have internalized the idea from a number of other factors. What is actually said by female feminists (and many male feminists, really), almost every time, is that men should be conscious of various factors while participating. You can make arguments about how welcome men are made to feel while doing so, but those are, I think, not really the point here.

This is certainly a possibility. I’m indeed having trouble recalling specific instances. But the impression is extremely vivid, and the effects were certainly very real.

In any case, I’ll table this for now and keep my eyes open for examples.

And actually it’s kind of bothersome when male feminists say that they should be there but not participate, because it feels like they’re (to some extent) ceding responsibility. I totally understand their instinct to do so — I have the same instinct about trans issues because I know some trans people who basically continually critique my language, and it gets exhausting and intimidating. But the thing is, being cis, I actually really should try to call out transphobia when I see it, and not throw up my hands and say “But I was so paralyzed by trans discourse, I couldn’t do anything!” Because I have more actual discursive power to make the point than many of them do.

I think maybe you’re misunderstanding the position. As a guy who was there before, I absolutely considered it my ordained responsibility as an uber-privileged person to take what I heard in the feminist blogosphere and apply it in life, especially calling people out on shit.

But I also considered it my ordained responsibility to listen, not speak, when it came to feminist discourse. In other words, it was my responsibility to act as a conduit for feminism into the wider world. Parroting, evangelizing, etc. but not participating.

The only exception to the “listen, don’t speak” rule was if I was sticking up for another acknowledged marginalized group (trans people, minority races, PWD, etc.). And, perhaps amusingly, I started to take a nasty sort of pleasure in calling feminists out on BS about those groups. And I loved reading rants on Womanist Musings, for example, about feminists. And in retrospect I think that was essentially a pressure-release for me, from lots of pent-up frustration that I didn’t feel allowed to be feeling or to express.

“Doesn’t introspection also owe a debt to people outside ourselves who encourage us to think about things? I’ve learned a lot from people who called me out on my privilege and encouraged me to think about what it might mean.”

oh, sure. But that’s what I’d call introspection. It allowed *you* to reconsider some positions incorporating other views and positions from different social positions without assigning your positions in a debate some privilege-based epistemological value. I’ve learnt a lot from other people as well, although I may react more strongly to being called privileged, because, to me, *because* it’s based on largely ascriptive criteria, it feels like the original sin, and when being called on it, as Garland says, the construction of the value system as inverse to the perceived social hierarchy makes it pretty impossible for someone with privilege to be taken seriously and have their experiences be considered equally worty in this debate.

That’s the thing – you cite me in your creep paper as saying something like “listen to what guys have to say and take their word for it”. Now, privilege is – at least can – automatically discount whatever we say as less valid, certainly less important, because of the privilege we are supposed to have.

“Again, I think this is more often read than stated.”

Possibly, but you really think statements like “check your privilege” are intended to foster conversation?

“These paragraphs were where I really started disagreeing with you. Do you really believe that privilege is only a framing device? That it’s so conceptually weak that it doesn’t actually have a purpose except to shut people down? I am really surprised. I’m not trying to jump on you, I’m just really surprised.”

Do I think that there are people who enjoy systemic advantages that they are not personally responsible for? Of course. Do I believe that I hold a lot of those? Sure. So, if you want to call those systemic advantages privilege, yes, I believe that privilege exists. Do I think that there is “power” in social relations? Yes. Do I think that the dimensions currently admissible in intersectionality theory are sufficiently detailed model of the underlying social structure they are attempting to understand – not really.

But what Garland referred to, in my opinion, was the use “in social justice [conversations]”, and he referred to their use as a discourse structuring device that is – as I read it – *intended* to gloss over some injustices in order fight larger order battles (deemed more important by whom?) As he said –

“We would have to treat each individual act of oppression separately, and we’d have no clue how to combat the societal forces that undergird those actions.”

I do realize that he tried to say – we need ways to express the structural forces we believe are at play, and we need to put individual cases of social injustice in their context. And, yes, he’s right about that, in a way, certainly from an communication effectiveness point of view.

But you do run the risk of glossing over problems that aren’t part of the admissible dimensions. And I think it’s a very bad idea to pre-structure a discourse about ethics based on criteria of group cohesion or political effectiveness.

So if you want to hear it again – yes, I am privileged. I am a white, cis, heterosexual dude, who’s got a couple of personal issues that made his life more difficult than it could have been, some of which have been partly caused by the “social justice” discourse. In the grand scheme of things, my problems are probably sort of objectively negligeable (not kidding), even though they are as painful for me as everyone else’s pain is for them. And although my pain is sort of negligeable in the grand scheme of things , it is still be kind of cool to be taken seriously when mentioning it instead of being automatically reminded how negligeable it is (“check your privilege!”).

This last bit may come across as passive aggressive, but it’s not intended to be, just trying to make sure.

Do I think that there are people who enjoy systemic advantages that they are not personally responsible for? Of course. Do I believe that I hold a lot of those? Sure. So, if you want to call those systemic advantages privilege, yes, I believe that privilege exists. Do I think that there is “power” in social relations? Yes. Do I think that the dimensions currently admissible in intersectionality theory are sufficiently detailed model of the underlying social structure they are attempting to understand – not really.

Agreed on all points.

I particularly get annoyed when trends in power dynamics are assumed to apply in individual cases (e.g. “men are in power”, therefore men hold primary power in all or nearly all male/female relationships). Or when power dynamics in one situation/setting are generalized to all or most situations/settings (e.g. “men wield our culture’s political power”, therefore men hold primary power in the dating/romance arena).

I think it’s particularly muddy when it comes to (cis) gender issues. The simplifying assumptions of privilege discourse I think fit better to trans issues and many racial minorities, for example, than to cis male/female. At least in the modern western world.

That doesn’t mean that privilege isn’t a useful concept in the cis male/female arena. But (to be math-geeky) it’s like trying to fit a smooth curve to extremely noisy data. And I think that’s why “female privilege” is something that comes up a lot: because there is, in fact, a great deal of data that is ill-accounted for with a one-sided privilege model.

Cessen:I particularly get annoyed when trends in power dynamics are assumed to apply in individual cases (e.g. “men are in power”, therefore men hold primary power in all or nearly all male/female relationships). Or when power dynamics in one situation/setting are generalized to all or most situations/settings (e.g. “men wield our culture’s political power”, therefore men hold primary power in the dating/romance arena).
And after that generalization (genderization?) final solutions and conclusions are made and the very language we speak on the issues with is molded by those parameters. This is how you get feminists (and other people) who will make simply outlandish declaration like there is no such thing as female against male sexism, there is no female privilege, misandry does not exist, and my personal favorite “men are not oppressed because of their gender”.

@Cessen — But I also considered it my ordained responsibility to listen, not speak, when it came to feminist discourse. In other words, it was my responsibility to act as a conduit for feminism into the wider world. Parroting, evangelizing, etc. but not participating.

Huh … but how did you do this if you didn’t feel like you were allowed to process and think about the issues? I guess people can process things perfectly well even within mental constraints.

Well … yes. I mean, Daran said it to me once, and it was highly effective.

But what Garland referred to, in my opinion, was the use “in social justice [conversations]“, and he referred to their use as a discourse structuring device that is – as I read it – *intended* to gloss over some injustices in order fight larger order battles (deemed more important by whom?)

Oh, interesting. No, I don’t think the idea of reverse-privileging marginalized voices within social justice spaces is intended to gloss over injustices — I think that there are merely some injustices that social-justice people are less likely to be aware of, so those get glossed over because they aren’t noticed, not because they aren’t deemed to be injustices at all. Now granted — some feminists fight really hard not to notice those injustices (the arguments over my “creep” article come to mind, where some feminists basically spent all their time arguing that the unevenness I was pointing to “doesn’t exist at all”). But I don’t think they see themselves as specifically ignoring privilege/injustice.

Oh, interesting. No, I don’t think the idea of reverse-privileging marginalized voices within social justice spaces is intended to gloss over injustices — I think that there are merely some injustices that social-justice people are less likely to be aware of, so those get glossed over because they aren’t noticed, rather than because they are deemed to be injustices that “can be ignored”. Now granted — some feminists fight really hard not to notice those injustices (the arguments over my “creep” article come to mind, where some feminists basically spent all their time arguing that the unevenness I was pointing to “doesn’t exist at all”). But I don’t think they see themselves as specifically ignoring privilege/injustice for the sake of larger privileges/injustices.

Huh … but how did you do this if you didn’t feel like you were allowed to process and think about the issues? I guess people can process things perfectly well even within mental constraints.

The idea is that if I didn’t agree about something, it was because I must not have thought hard enough about it, or read enough about it, or I was blocked by ingrained misogyny or patriarchal brain washing, and I had to bang my head against the wall until I “got it”. Basically, any time I disagreed, it was my responsibility to ‘shape up’ rather than to express my disagreement.

And yes, often I was parroting things to other guys with great gusto that I wasn’t actually sure about (although I sure tried to convince myself that I was sure about it). But I did it anyway, because it was the “right thing to do”, because I was uber-privileged and it was my responsibility. After all, I wanted to be one of the good guys, right?

Seriously, it’s painfully obvious to me when I see other guys that are in that state (I think I forwarded an email to you at one point from a random guy that was upset with me?). And I feel really bad for them, because it’s an extraordinary state of cognitive dissonance and substantial internal stresses (without outlets, because if you complain to anyone, especially other guys…). It really, really sucks.

I’m not sure about how the majority of feminists feel about the reverse-discimination/privileging, but the conceptual structure seems not merely accidental… this is a recent comment from the female privilege thread at the finallyfeminism101 blog. The comment below is from the author of said blog. Certainly, not the one and only voice defining feminisms, but to be honest, if there is one thing uniting most kinds of feminisms, I think it is *that* axiomatic structure. The mental effort to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by data that contradicts these axiomatic beliefs is also visible in the example you mention. Such a mental defense mechanism is certainly natural on the individual level, but I also believe that there is an “informally institutionalised” (thought structures, mental patterns, in-group standards and pressures (like the ones you feel about making your writing *feel* feminist, etc) structure preserving this state of affairs. I’d call this meta-intentional, and not merely accidental.

“‘Don’t women have “female privilege”?’
‘No. In the context of feminism (as well as other contexts), the term ‘privilege’ is used specifically to refer to advantages gained through being part of a superior social group. So, by definition, there can be no female privilege in a male-dominated society.’

That’s actually a very good answer and is indeed exactly what I believe.”

Sam:Certainly, not the one and only voice defining feminisms, but to be honest, if there is one thing uniting most kinds of feminisms, I think it is *that* axiomatic structure.
And ask yourself how many times have you seen feminists shoo dissenting voices over to that place. Not trying to say that every single feminist agrees with every single thing on that site. Unless its not a matter of actually sending them somewhere where they can get some understanding and just for the sake of getting rid of said dissenters…

That quote Sam brings up there is a shining example of trying to use an illusion of institutional and use it to sweep away all others they don’t agree with or shrug them off with lip service.

First off this society is not male dominated. Those who are at the top are not working in interests of men. They are looking out for themselves and the fact that they share gender with the men at the bottom means absolutely nothing. And no amount of droning about “male privilege” is going to change that. Until feminists quit trying to keep the lines of gender discourse so heavily gendered (“men have it and women don’t”) they are going to have a hard time reaching out to men in larger numbers (and it doesn’t help that they try to pass off the ones that have aligned with them as better than the rest of us).

I wish them good luck getting allies by telling us we don’t have problems or that our problems don’t matter or dismissing them with empty lip service.

Saturday night, at a costume party, I met a creep if there ever was one. I don’t know how exactly he did it, but I’ve never seen women cringe like they did when he touched them, even if it was their upper arm, probably among the safest areas on a woman’s body for initial touch. Whenever I saw this guy touch a woman, her reaction was “don’t!.” It’s really hard to explain what it was that made him creepy, but I could definitely sense it, too. I mean, it was a costume party, and there was a lot of touching and flirting going on, but whenever this guy approached a group and started touching, any positive sexual energy floating seemed to become negative. I think it was a weird blend of overconfidence (not a single rejection seemed to make him reconsider his approach) and lack of empathy. I had literally never seen anything like this. When he started to talk about sex honestly he said “I’d really like to fuck tonight”. Short, he was the guy no one actually liked but he was a friend of one of the hosts’ brother, so he had to be ignored as much as was possible.

But here it comes. Guess who was (probably) the only one who managed to “get some” at the party? Quite right. It was creepy-dude. Before I left, I told that I was puzzled by his creepy behaviour and wondered if that usually worked for him? He merely smiled at me, wondering what I was talking about. He replied by telling another host that he was going to sleep on the couch in her room that night. Guess where he slept.

I doubt the guy was actually sociopathic, but if I’ve ever seen a literal translation of the “asshole” every woman – even physically – hates but who still “gets some”, for some reason I don’t understand, it was this guy. And yes, “creep” totally defines his case.

In re: that article Sam linked. The owners of that site definitely read my creep article, because I linked to one of their pages when I wrote it, and that article got a ton of traffic. It’s interesting to see the influence from my article on how they’re writing now.

In re: creepy dude Sam saw. Yeah, I recently read the Game (what a trip! that book is fascinating — there are too many things about it to talk about right now but I particularly appreciate how it quotes Gloria Steinem, Catherine MacKinnon and of all people Jenny Holzer). And obviously I’ve been reading more and more PUA stuff. The thing that’s really gross about that community is how there’s almost no ethical concern, or ethical concerns are considered too complicated to be relevant (Hugh has pointed out before that in some places, ethics is actively an off-limits topic because it’s “too controversial”). Which means techniques are developed without much concern about whether they’re ethical. It’s obvious from reading the Game and from reading some of these fora that there are plenty of PUAs who prefer to use techniques that are ethical, or at least relatively ethical. But it’s also really awful how many of the techniques are clearly intended to capitalize on some women’s low self-esteem and bad (=badly trained) boundary-setting, not to mention the complexes most women have around being “liked” and getting people to “like” us through sex.

Make no mistake, that’s how assholes like the one Sam saw are getting laid. They’re not making women like them or even making women attracted to them. They’re using lines like “I thought you were fun” or “I thought you were liberated” or “What do you mean, ‘no'” or they’re just refusing to take no for an answer and continuing to push, push, push. I’ve been meeting plenty of PUAs I like or am even attracted to, but there have been one or two who have tried to use this bullshit on me in a manipulative way rather than a fun way, and let me tell you, it is not fun to be in that position. One of the worst parts is that I can see how they would have manipulated me into bed when I was 17 or 18 and had zero self-esteem and didn’t know what I wanted. It’s nauseating.

“It’s interesting to see the influence from my article on how they’re writing now.”

Could you be more specific here?

As for the guy – I think it’s a bit (actually quite a bit) unfair to group him with PUAs. I don’t know what exactly he told the woman (all the women there were grad students, at least 24yo, although the guy was apparently a bit younger) to get into whatever he got into in the end. I doubt he was sneaky and manipulative, he was just inappropriately direct, and entirely unconcerned about being annoying. As I said, I don’t know what exactly it was that made him so “creepy”, but it had something to do with the original meaning of “creepy”, the way he talked, the way he touched, at least as it appeared to me.

I doubt this guy would be interested in pickup techniques, what he did seemed to work for him and he really didn’t care about vocal rejections – he respected the no, but moved on to the next woman around.

As for “the game” – it would be great to get a more detailed review about your take. With respect to the ethical aspects – I think a big problem is that for many critics the motivation of dating advice for pickup itself is unethical. This seems to be the feminist gut reaction. That, given the feminist discourse hegemony on “morality in the gender realm” may lead to a certain disregard for specific ethical aspects, as those in the SC concerned with ethics will likely get the feeling they’re doing something inherently unethical and will hence not be too concerned with specific ethical aspects, likely also as a group-defense mechanism.

“tried to use this bullshit on me in a manipulative way rather than a fun way”

This is a subject very near and dear to my heart. Mostly because I sort of recently gotten over it.

I’ve just stopped worrying about it. If I go up and start a conversation with a woman, and she acts all creeped out, then she’s the one with the attitude problem, not me or anyone else.

The guy asking about the sushi place in your example didn’t do a damn thing wrong. Doesn’t it sound ridiculous that he feels bad for simply asking for a sushi place? It’s not like he just went up and slapped their ass or something.

Any guy who’s worried about creeping a woman out, just ask this question to yourself. Why should I feel bad about being myself? The answer, you shouldn’t.

I’m also not comfortable with labeling being-creeped-out as an “attitude problem”. But I think it’s useful for guys like myself to externalize the causes of the reaction. Like, “She’s probably just had bad experiences with guys before. So I’ll back off, but it’s not my problem.” Or something along those lines.

Something I’m realizing about myself is that it’s extremely difficult for me to have confidence that I’m not a creep. If someone reacts badly to me, I don’t think, “Wow… she totally misread what kind of a person I am,” instead I think, “Wow… I must be a creep and a bad person to illicit that kind of reaction.”

Not that it sticks that way. I do have confidence that I am decent human being, not deserving of the label “creep”. But in the moment, that confidence dissolves almost completely. “If I make a move, and she reacts badly, I’m a creepy bad person…”

So it seems like a lot of it is just building up that confidence that, in fact, I am not a creep. I am a decent guy. And if women react badly to me, that’s not my problem (except as a practical concern, which I can then work on as a practical problem).

(And, of course, if a woman reacts badly, I will back off. Is it weird that I feel like I have to qualify this to avoid being misread? I do care about being ethical, really. Probably the fact that I feel like I have to say this is linked to the problem. Ha ha.)

I’ve been thinking some more about specific creep cases and I’ve been able to identify two so far:

a) “premature sexualisation” – this is actually what Strauss in the game says puas should avoid at all costs: hitting on a woman without having established the reasonable assumption of attraction on her part. So thinking about the guy from last weekend, I think this is what he was mostly doing – when he was touching the girls, in the way he did it, there seemed to be something at least implied sexual, and it was, I’d say, that much more than the touch itself that creeped the women out. I think the initial touching can be difficult to get right, as it should be safe, but masculine, firm, but friendly, potentially sexual, but not actually sexual. But I think that this is a particularly important aspect, as most people, certainly most women seem to have a finely tuned radar for good and bad touching. So, in order to avoid that kind of creepiness, avoid premature sexualisation of conversation or the touch.

b) “insecurity induced creepiness” – this is probably the most “unfair” kind of creepiness. Some of the guys I’d call creepy are so because they are insecure in what they do. When they say “hello” it comes across as “I’m sorry, may I say hello please” and their insecurity leads them to be awkward in most interactions – and – since that insecurity is so unattractive to most women, they will likely fall into the premature sexualisation creepiness cluster regardless of how much effort they expended on any particular interaction.

(off-topic: I didn’t post anything to the “what are you into” thread… while my set of immediate reactions might be hilarious, it likely wouldn’t be productive ;)

(also off-topic: In two days, the Motley experiment turns one year old. Huh.)

The thing that’s really gross about that community is how there’s almost no ethical concern

The way I’ve heard this described, in feminist-speak, is that it’s supposed to be a safe space for male sexuality–in a society in which “ethics” and “shaming male sexuality” are frequently synonymous. So it seems reasonable to expect ethics to be a banned topic, if only to avoid being inundated with outraged feminists (and adherents to patriarchy; this is one of the areas where there’s not much difference) who are disgusted at the existence of overt male sexuality being treated as something not inherently toxic.

Though I’m just going off of what I’ve heard; it could easily be something simpler. But not something sinister. (To be honest, I’ve got to admit that the widespread demonization of ordinary men is pretty funny, but maybe only to me.)

@ Cessen–

I’m also not comfortable with labeling being-creeped-out as an “attitude problem”.

The more I think about it, the less certain of it I get. What Sam mentions as “insecurity induced creepiness” is, I think, an attitude problem on the part of the person being creeped out. Because it’s not useful for anything. I might have a warped perspective on this, but a reflex that does nothing but make you afraid of shy people doesn’t seem very useful.

It’s odd, all things considered, that I don’t feel like I have a lot to add to this particular line of discussion; but I think that’s my point in the preceding paragraph. I have very little experience of being called creepy,* while I can’t count how many times I’ve seen harmless-but-insecure guys trigger the “creepy” reflex. In this case, it seems to be a danger-detection instinct that only registers false positives. (I don’t think my experience with it is purely a result of my Disarming Grin (TM), because it took a long time to perfect, and I didn’t usually set off people’s creep-o-meters even before then).

For a counter-example, what Sam calls “premature sexualization” seems like a more positive trigger for the creep-o-meter; I’d bet money that a lot of sexual assaults (and, doubtless, murders) have been prevented by that particular reflex. But, Sam, I disagree that they’re all that closely tied together. Social awkwardness–or even reluctance–trips the creep-o-meter all on its own, even without anything resembling sexual behavior from the “creep.”

*None that I can actually recall, not counting humor, but I’ll certainly allow the possibility that it may’ve happened at some point without me becoming aware of it.
To clarify, though (is this a footnote to a footnote?) there is a certain instinct that I do sometimes trigger, but I’m very much convinced that it’s not the same reflex that makes women feel creeped out by the socially awkward; I’m not actually sure what it is (though oddly, it seems to function inversely to socialization–less well-socialized people seem to get that particular vibe from me much more often than their peers. I have a mild suspicion that it’s tied to some form of an autism-spectrum disorder, that makes people unable to perceive my deliberate “I Am Harmless” signals). Also, equally oddly, the people who catch that vibe from me generally have a particular set of reactions that’s wholly different from the way people react to “creeps.” So I’m pretty confident in my assessment that it’s not the same thing).

Anyway, to (finally) get to the point: I think it’s significant that people like Cessen have more experience than I do with being thought creepy. It seems not just unfair, but… I’m not sure–foolish?

Anyway, to (finally) get to the point: I think it’s significant that people like Cessen have more experience than I do with being thought creepy.

To be fair, I’m actually really, really good at not coming across as creepy. But I do it the same way as the quote from the article above: I mute everything other than platonic interactions. And this actually makes me really comfortable. I’m really comfortable around women and interacting with women. But only if I switch into platonic mode. Being uber-platonic around women is pretty much a reflex for me at this point. I slip into by default, and I have to exert effort to push out of it.

So I don’t have much experience coming across as creepy when trying to express interest, because I just don’t express interest. It has been this way for me for a really long time. I have a deep-seated fear of being creepy, or making women uncomfortable. Of being “that guy”.

It’s entirely possible that if I went ahead and gave it a try, I wouldn’t come off as creepy at all. But due to lack of experience, I don’t know, and so I’m afraid. And because I’m afraid, I continue to have lack of experience.

Like the guy I quoted, I have witnessed women react to other guys as creepy. “I never, ever want to be that guy.” It’s a powerful motivator.

But I do have experience creeping out women. It’s just that very little of it is in the context of attempting to express interest (although a small bit is). Most of it is more like the guy asking where a sushi place is. Or accidentally making eye-contact with a woman on a bus. Or coincidentally walking behind a woman for a bit with no one else around, due to going the same route. Or drawing kids at a park. Etc. Etc. Etc. Just day-to-day life, in other words.

Morals and ethics are not good discussion topics. Any knowledge on any topic can be used for inappropriate purposes or for purposes which go against someone else’s morals or ethics. mASF is no different. It’s up to each individual guy to choose how he makes use of the information, it’s not very constructive to dispute morals or ethics on the forum.

As I understand it, the guidelines present pickup techniques as morally neutral, and that the morals of individuals will influence how they are applied. Morality isn’t considered unimportant, it’s just considered individual.

I don’t agree with this stance. Pickup techniques are not entirely morally neutral. Also, some individual guys have weird existing moral ideas, and I’d rather they receive guidance instead of following their own intuitions. Furthermore, if you can’t discuss your moral goals, then it’s difficult to discuss techniques that are designed to achieve them.

Yet despite the posting guidelines, there is actually a lot of ethical discussion that goes on in pickup, including on that forum. It just doesn’t always bash you over the head with the words “ethics” or “morals.”

In the community, there are ethical norms; they just aren’t well articulated or discussed at a higher level. For example, if a guy is doing certain messed up stuff to a certain level, other PUAs in his forum/lair will start trashing him (talking shit about other PUAs is the second-favorite activity of PUAs). Here are a few examples I’ve seen:

– A guy posted about making his girlfriend cry. Half the major posters on the forum started flaming him.

– A guy posted a field report where he had sex with a woman after she had said “no” several times and never changed it to a “yes.” A major poster on the forum said, “dude, this sounds like rape!” The other guy responded that it wasn’t, but you would have had to be there.

– A guy posted about getting women drunk on a lair forum. Several other members of the lair started trashing him for it, resulting in a feud which got the original guy kicked off the lair.

– A guy in the lair got a reputation for messing with women’s heads (e.g. inviting women over, having them do his laundry, then sexually rejecting them). Some guys thought it was funny, but other guys on the lair talked crap about him.

In most of the discussions, people weren’t using words like “moral” or “ethical,” but they were still engaging in moral discussion.

Now, what of “ethics” and “morality” themselves? I did some searches on those terms in the mASF archive to find out how effective the ban on discussing them really is, and I found more discussion than I expected. I compared the results to several other concepts, such as “last minute resistance” (LMR), and some more neutral ones, like attraction, comfort, and escalation.

“ethic OR ethics OR ethical OR moral OR morals OR morality”:
644 topics, 7427 posts

“LMR OR resistance”
2558 topics, 13435 posts

“attraction OR attract OR attracting”
4355 topics, post body search times out, which means more than 22k, the biggest result I’ve managed to get

“connection OR comfort OR rapport”
2851 topics, post body search times out

Depending on whether we measure by topics or posts, PUAs discuss ethics about 25-55% as much as LMR tactics. Considering that the former discussions are explicitly prohibited by the forum’s posting guidelines, the amount of moral discussion is actually quite impressive. It’s almost as if many PUAs have moral views and are extremely interested in talking about them!

Of course, just because PUAs talk about ethics, it doesn’t mean that they are asking the right questions or coming up with answers that make sense. But it shows that plenty of them are concerned with ethics, even though PUA forums aren’t the greatest place for ethical discussion.

I’d tend to agree with Motley regarding the safe-space and shaming aspect.

One of the best SC bits I read somewhere was “leave her better than you find her”. In the context it didn’t necessarily imply leaving her, but if so, I understood it to mean adding something valuable to her life, just as she adds somethin valuable to yours, so when your ways part, both will remember the time spent together fondly and will be better humans due to mutual enrichment.

Oh man, the Chicago BDSM scene is going through a BIG SCANDAL right now and I’m tangentially caught up in it. However, I have DECIDED that I will no longer be thinking about it. Probably. At least not today. (One of my friends always says that “the reason the S&M scene gets so weird sometimes is that everyone in it has POWER ISSUES.”) So anyway, I finally have time to comment here.

@Sam — as those in the SC concerned with ethics will likely get the feeling they’re doing something inherently unethical and will hence not be too concerned with specific ethical aspects, likely also as a group-defense mechanism.

yeah — I am concerned about this. This is yet another of the reasons I’m DYING to participate in/encourage a feminist (or at least ethics-focused) PUA curriculum. I want it to be 100% clear to the whole world that there is totally nothing inherently wrong with discussing social dynamics and getting better at them! And as I’ve said before, I really want the ethical/feminist guys that I’m most interested in to be better at picking me up :P

“tried to use this bullshit on me in a manipulative way rather than a fun way” — Could you elaborate the difference a little more?

I’d rather not use specific examples from my life for a few reasons (I’m writing an article on this, for one thing, and for another, some of the PUAs I know in person are reading this thread). But in The Game, there’s an example of a PUA who is really great at sleeping with women, but essentially argues them into it. He’ll get them talking about their fantasy selves or whatever (maybe by asking, “So do you think of yourself as liberated?”) and then once he gets them to say something like that, he’ll start pushing boundaries. When they resist, he’ll say something like, “I thought you were so liberated.” This is really, really manipulative and not cool.

I like your creep taxonomy cases a lot.

A friend of mine and I painted her attic recently and she put the terrible movie “It’s Complicated” on in the background. I reacted really strongly to Alec Baldwin’s character in that movie — I was literally yelling at the screen. My friend laughed at me and said “Yeah he’s so creepy huh?” Here are the behaviors that freaked me out:

1) He aggressively would control her space, for example, at one point they’re sitting at a bar and a waiter comes by to take her to her table, but Alec puts his hand on the back of her chair and tells the waiter that they’ll both eat at the bar.

2) He consistently wouldn’t let Meryl Streep’s character finish sentences or set boundaries.

There was some other stuff too. At the same time, Meryl WAS TOTALLY INTO HIM and allowed him to get away with it. It really upset me to watch it, but I do think the character was intended to show bad/creepy male behavior, because in the end he doesn’t get the girl.

@Motley — In two days, the Motley experiment turns one year old. Huh.

And it’s almost time for mistletoe! If I had the addresses or names for you and Sam, and if I had money, then I would mail Sam some mistletoe and you, Motley, a birthday cupcake.

The way I’ve heard this described, in feminist-speak, is that it’s supposed to be a safe space for male sexuality–in a society in which “ethics” and “shaming male sexuality” are frequently synonymous.

I get it, but I don’t buy it. There are too many men who dislike the SC because of the misogyny, and are freaked out specifically by the unethical aspects of it, for it to be excusable as a “masculine safe space”. Also, feminists never chill out in SC fora … that’s not why those fora are being controlled. They’re being controlled to shape conversation among the men there, not to prevent outsiders from getting mad.

What Sam mentions as “insecurity induced creepiness” is, I think, an attitude problem on the part of the person being creeped out. Because it’s not useful for anything

Oh this is interesting. I wonder if it’s useful for something that we’re just not seeing. I myself have really weird creep-dar. There are guys I’ve been friends with, or even dated, who set off other peoples’ creep-dar like crazy (even men’s creep-dar) but who didn’t register on mine. I’ve never been physically harmed either. I will say, though, that the “creepiest” guy I ever dated also pulled some of the most frustrating, bullshit, volatile emotional movies a man has ever pulled on me. So maybe part of what creep-dar detects is whether a man can effectively control and communicate about his emotions.

Actually, even as I type this I’m getting more convinced about it, because another guy I know who was recently characterized as “creepy” by a random woman is actually fairly charismatic and articulate but can’t deal with his emotions at all (seriously, I’ve seen him end discussions by shouting “I’m right and you know it now shut up!”).

@HR — I don’t agree with this stance. Pickup techniques are not entirely morally neutral. Also, some individual guys have weird existing moral ideas, and I’d rather they receive guidance instead of following their own intuitions. Furthermore, if you can’t discuss your moral goals, then it’s difficult to discuss techniques that are designed to achieve them.

Notwithstanding my response to Motley, I’m actually coming around to the idea that the pickup community may not be as hostile to morality as I thought. Partly this is because the aforementioned BDSM community showdown that I mentioned has included some conversational shutdowns that happened because they were getting too heated … and, you guessed it, those conversations were about ethics. I am so mad about this you have no idea. But I don’t think in indicates that people don’t care about ethics.

@Sam — One of the best SC bits I read somewhere was “leave her better than you find her”.

Yeah, there’s lots of this. There’s also lots of “Haha girls are crazy” though. (Direct quotation from an LMR thread focused on a field report that looked suspiciously like a rape.)

Oh this is interesting. I wonder if it’s useful for something that we’re just not seeing. I myself have really weird creep-dar. There are guys I’ve been friends with, or even dated, who set off other peoples’ creep-dar like crazy (even men’s creep-dar) but who didn’t register on mine. I’ve never been physically harmed either. I will say, though, that the “creepiest” guy I ever dated also pulled some of the most frustrating, bullshit, volatile emotional movies a man has ever pulled on me. So maybe part of what creep-dar detects is whether a man can effectively control and communicate about his emotions.

Actually, even as I type this I’m getting more convinced about it, because another guy I know who was recently characterized as “creepy” by a random woman is actually fairly charismatic and articulate but can’t deal with his emotions at all (seriously, I’ve seen him end discussions by shouting “I’m right and you know it now shut up!”).

Interesting. This fits in well with something I mentioned over at FC: calling a guy a “creep” is actually closer to calling a woman “crazy” than it is to calling her a “slut”.

Ableism aside, I think “crazy” and similar is actually a valuable vocabulary for guys to have because it allows them to talk about women with similar issues as the men you describe above. I also suspect “crazy” is often used in place of “abusive” when it comes to guys talking about women, because it can be emasculating for a guy to identify as abused (particularly if that abuse happened as an adult, and particularly if he was abused by a woman).

Of course, just like “creep”, “crazy” can be and very often is applied with too broad a brush, and can be very harmful to women as a group due to that.

well, happy anniversay to you, too :) This is certainly the longest online conversation I’ve ever been a part of :) And it’s one of the very best :).

you remember the name of the person/character in the game that you’re referring to? Then I could look it up in the book…

“He’ll get them talking about their fantasy selves or whatever (maybe by asking, “So do you think of yourself as liberated?”) and then once he gets them to say something like that, he’ll start pushing boundaries. When they resist, he’ll say something like, “I thought you were so liberated.” This is really, really manipulative and not cool.”

Hmm, I think it really depends on defining manipulative/*unethical* boundary pushing – because people’s boundaries with each other are constantly shifting when they’re meeting, that’s sort of the point of getting to know each other in the any romantic/sexual context, don’t you think? Or to put this differently, if the first category of “creep” I mention above can be about “premature” sexualisation, then that implies that there is a point where sexualisation is no longer premature, or in other words, when the boundaries of the people involved have shifted to allow sexualisation. So, question – how do boundaries shift? They will rarely shift without interaction, and within interactions, there will inevitably be some polling and pushing – that’s the nature of every interaction. So “boundary pushing” seems like a term in need of a more precise definition to be useful in an ethical discussion, in my opinion.

I think there’s generally nothing wrong with using projections to entice positive emotions (fantasy self), and it’s hard to comment on the second part of the story without knowing the context. I think it would be ok to tease her about something that would completely contradict what she had said before. Here, again, I think, the problmatic aspect is in the “performance” and the “context” not the teasing itself.

Example? About four weeks or so ago, I met a girl at a club (who told me a very revealing story about her sex life within the first 5 minutes of chatting) and at some point we got into talking about the movie “the full monty” and how the women in the film emasculated the men by peeing into a urinal. She said, she’d totally always wanted to try peeing into a urinal and she said she’d be totally up for it. So I said, let’s go… and we actually walked to the mensroom… but then suddenly (though not surprisingly) she bailed. So I smiled, laughed and jokingly said “coward… ;)”. Then I went in on my own while she walked back to the bar. I don’t think I was being manipulative by pointing out that she wasn’t as “wild” as the claimed to be…

I’m sure it’s possible to get seriously insecure people to do things they don’t really want to do by offering approval and social value and making it dependent on a test like “if you actually were cool, you’d pee in the urinal…”. But the “effectiveness” of that strategy would probably mostly depend on the ability to target the kind of person who would fall for that kind of thing.

But *every* social technique, like every technology, is dual use. What can be the source of fun and enjoyment for everyoneinvolved if used in the right dosage and the right way (think alcohol, or flirting, or sex), can be used to inflict pain if used in the wrong way. Time to use one of my favorite quotes of all times: “Medicine in the hands of a fool is poison, just as poison becomes medicine in the hands of the wise.”

Guess who said that… a certain Giacomo Casanova. He was quite good with women, I hear ;) Sadly, not everyone who can read and learn basic psychological tricks is also a wise man/woman. Some people just are fools.

I’ve come across his posts a few times before. I think that he’s often saying interesting things. What bugs me about his writing is — yes — the entitlement. Let me explain:

No matter how much it sucks that a certain person has trouble finding people to have sex with — and yes, it obviously sucks, whether it’s happening to men or older women or fat people or whatever — this problem should never be discursively turned into “this person is entitled to sex”. Because no one is actually entitled to sex, and if we start acting like a given class of person is entitled to sex, then that becomes extremely dangerous extremely fast. This theme comes up really often in his writing. For example, a quotation from here:http://emporiasexus.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/men-cant-opt-out/

To assume, for example, that a young man who cannot find a partner must have Asperger’s Syndrome, or some kind of fatal personality flaw. This strikes me as an evasion, as a way to avoid looking at the ways in which society in general, and women in particular, act to marginalize good men.

(emphasis mine)

It’s important not to give any credence to the idea that a person who can’t find a sexual partner is “marginalized” because of that. No one has a right to a sexual partner. We can analyze what makes it hard for some people to find partners, and we can be sad about the social forces that make it hard for some people to find partners, and we can talk about tactics to help good people find partners, but it’s really important that we don’t ever make claims about how a given person “should” have a partner or other people are hurting that person by not partnering them, because these are tacit efforts to guilt people into having relationships they don’t want.

I didn’t get that from the quote at all. Maybe you’re using a differnt definition of “marginalize”, but I think he’s referring to social pressures like the ones we’re trying to work out in this thread. I don’t see how it follows from that that anyone has a positive right to sex (as opposed to the right to be free to engage in their sexuality) or that anyone should be implicitly or explicitly “forced” into any relationship.

“to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group”

No one becomes unimportant or powerless just because someone else won’t sleep with them. And if that’s not what he means in that paragraph about how women “act to marginalize good men” who can’t find partners, then what does he mean?

In a social justice context, the idea of “marginalizing” comes with a strong implication that people should act to counteract the marginalization. (Hence, all the ideas about giving marginalized voices more space in social justice contexts.)

Perhaps that is one interpretation of his words. But there is another possible interpretation. The marginalization does not necessarily refer to the lack of sex itself, but to the categories and stereotypes which are applied to men (in particular) who admit to being vulnerable and “less-than” in that particular dimension. This labeling or self-labeling can induce a kind of self-reinforcing stereotype threat which keeps the person in their unhappy condition. And I think that is the real subject of a lot of his writing.

There is a levels problem to the oft-repeated caution that “men don’t need sex.” What is intended by this, primarily, is a caution against a common phony invocation in the moment of “need,” a pushy seduction tactic. But what is heard, by a certain kind of sensitive man, is a message of the type of “if you aren’t getting it, you don’t deserve it, so shut up.” It is a reinforcement of negative self-talk, insecurity, or as figleaf puts it “unworthiness.”

And they are not necessarily wrong in hearing this. There is a lot of research done these days on the “just world” hypothesis, where a lot of people — or Americans, at any rate — have a kind of unconscious assumption going on in their minds that people pretty much get what is coming to them in life, that poor people have made bad choices, for example. Now, I pretty much reject this wholesale and outright. The race is not to the swift, etc.

But it isn’t that unusual for people, even feminists, to apply this kind of implicit judgment against those who find themselves in some kind of unhappy situation — particularly if these people are men who are “supposed to be privileged.”

So that is some of what I think emporiasexus is kicking against. Not that I always agree with him. For example I very much dissent against the trope of “taking advantage of someone” sexually — unless that is part of an ironically meant consensual language among lovers. If he wants to say that a certain dynamic is one in which both men and women participate, then he should describe it as just that, a mutual game. The tango is not a dance in which men just drag around passive partners. But then I have always felt that the syntax of sexual relations makes a big difference, and often I would rather reform the way we think about what we do rather than the behavior itself — if we are more observant we might see that the other’s agency is right there, but we have trained ourselves not to see it.

@Sam:
I think even if “marginalized” is taken in its more typical laymen definition (which lacks a lot of the connotations and implications that its social justice use has), Clarisse still has a point.

I think this is a hard line to walk, though, so I’m not exactly feeling jumpy about his writing in that respect. He could just as well be a woman talking about geeky high school girls being sexually “marginalized”. And I don’t think that’s too inappropriate, even if it has hints of entitlement.

In general I think it’s hard to talk about this stuff precisely. Because you basically want to say two things:
1. It’s bad that these people aren’t getting any.
2. No one is obligated to give them any.

And on a gut level I think these statements are hard to reconcile, because it starts to sounds like “Yeah, it sucks that the poor are suffering, but the rich don’t have any obligation to help.”

But I think it’s easier if we add a third point:
1. It’s bad that these people aren’t getting any.
2. No one is obligated to give them any.
3. But there are social norms and influences that are making things far more difficult than they need to be for these people, and it would probably be good to work at changing some that.

Like, a person may not be attracted to obese people, or super skinny people, or black people, etc. And they have no obligation to have sex with those people. But insofar as these issues are due to social norms and influences, it would be good to work towards change.

I don’t find 1. and 2. hard to reconcile at all unless there is a hidden assumption that this kind of sexual “marginalization” requires means-tested redistribution of touching, and not merely a social effort to help change the current distribution.

So 3. – yeah. And I’m under the impression your 3. is what the paragraph Clarisse quoted is about. So, as I think we all agree that working on 3. would be a good thing, that reconciles it with Clarisse’s “In a social justice context, the idea of “marginalizing” comes with a strong implication that people should act to counteract the marginalization.”

They should indeed, just not by giving up their own human rights (negative sexual freedom, freedom to choose), that would make no sense at all.

Remembering how I felt about myself before I got better with women, I agree with humbition’s interpretation – I never blamed women for not wanting me, maybe because there was always a little interest, but I would certainly have loved to have a space to vent frustration and be understood. Actually, I did participate in a forum of involuntary celibates of both sexes for a while, and, there as well, the guys seemed to feel worse (“marginalized”) about their situation than the girls.

Clarrise:It’s important not to give any credence to the idea that a person who can’t find a sexual partner is “marginalized” because of that. No one has a right to a sexual partner.
I don’t think he was trying to. I get the impression that the marginalization he speaks of is not a matter of “he’s marginalized because he’s having a hard time with meeting sexual partners” but more of the presumption that “he’s marginalized because of the attitude that he’s having a hard time with meeting sexual partners because something must be wrong with him”.

In fact to borrow your definition:“to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group”

Those men are relegated to an unimportant or powerless position when they are written off as having something wrong with them and therefore should not be trying to meet up with sexual partners until they change.

I am admittedly not entitled to sexual pleasure from her. And I’m not necessarily entitled to sexual pleasure from her, or her, or her. But I am entitled to sexual pleasure from some woman, somewhere, at some time. It is not reasonable to require, even as a remote hypothetical, that I accept a life of masturbatory solipsism as a condition for an ethical sexuality.

I don’t think that anyone is entitled to sexual pleasure from some member of the collective of people they are interested in, because those people aren’t a collective. I’m not going get on Miguel’s case about this notion, because he’s already contradicted it by saying that individual women always have a right to say “no.” He himself realizes the contradiction in a later post:

A woman always has the right to say “no,” of course. But how can this be reconciled with what I said in an earlier post, that I had a right to have my sexual needs met by some woman, somewhere, at some time? Can I feel it is “reasonable and due” that my sexual needs be met by “women” (Plural), while at the same time believing that “a woman” (Singular) always has the right to say “no?”

These things can’t be reconciled, because “women” as a bloc don’t exist. There is no female Pussy Commissar to say, “Ladies! That guy over there isn’t getting any attention, someone please fix that.” I don’t think Miguel holds such a silly idea; rather, he seems to have an intuition that when someone who is a decent person is getting massively overlooked by the sex they are interested in, something is probably wrong.

I think Miguel’s arguments are actually pointing towards a different conclusion than his contradictory notion of men being entitled to sex from “some woman,” even if they aren’t entitled to sex from any individual woman. In the second post I linked to, Miguel makes analogy between non-stereotypically masculine men, and older women:

So then what, if anything, is wrong with an older man having an exclusive preference for hot, young babes? And is Mrs. Warner’s rage irrational or justified?

The answer, I think, relates back to what I said in an earlier post: I have a right to have my sexual needs met by some woman, somewhere, at some time – even if I have no right to expect or demand to have my sexual needs met by a specific woman at a specific time. It follows from this that “women,” at least in theory, have an obligation to keep an open mind about having sexual relations with men who stand at different levels in the unspoken social hierarchy – that is, men who may be shy and not comport with traditional notions of masculinity – even if no individual woman ever has the obligation to reciprocate my sexual interest. And the obligation to keep an open mind means that it is wrong for women to develop habits of thought and behavior which are categorically dismissive of the sexuality of men who are not confident and – I hate to use the term – not “alpha males.”

Not true?

Well, by analogy, consider the case of a woman over forty. She, for example, does not have the right to expect me to become romantically involved with her, if I don’t feel an attraction and don’t want to have a sexual relationship. Furthermore, she does not have a right to feel “entitled” to a sexual relationship with him, or him, or him. But she does have a right to feel “entitled” to some kind of sexual validation from “men.” Which isn’t to say that it’s always wrong for an older man to have sexual relations with a younger woman. But men do have an obligation to at least keep an open mind in regard to the sexuality of older women, and it is wrong for men to develop habits of thought and behavior that are categorically dismissive toward the sexuality of women over forty.

In this version, it’s obvious that he is actually making a more nuanced argument: rather than people being entitled to sex partners with some members of the gender they desire, he is saying that people are entitled to be considered as sex partners by some members of the the gender they desire.

That formulation makes a lot more sense, but I disagree with the potential implication that people have a right to be considered as partners by others who are far away in age or attractiveness (for instance, young people who know they want someone their own age might be justified in dismissing decades-older people as mates, and vice versa). I would put it slightly differently: people are entitled to not be arbitrarily dismissed as sexual partners due to prejudice. And people are entitled to society not encouraging such prejudice.

For example, women may be encouraged to only view men as masculine and attractive who fit a certain narrow notion of masculinity, which could cause women to exclude men that they otherwise wouldn’t. Similarly, men may be encouraged to only view women as attractive if they fit a narrow body type or age range, which could cause men to exclude women that they otherwise wouldn’t.

To say that such socialization marginalizes men (or women, in the second case), and that they are entitled to society refraining from socializing people to prejudicially reject them… those are points that I absolutely agree with.

Of course, it’s difficult to know on an individual level how much someone’s preferences are dictated by socialized prejudices, and how much they are biologically predisposed. And even if they are primarily socialized, they might not be very malleable. As a result, it’s difficult to expect any individual person to be more open-minded about dating a wider range of people. It could be that if they considered a less narrow group of people, they would only find themselves incompatible with those people.

I encourage people to try to figure out what their actual preferences and priorities are for partners, and attempt to root out unnecessary and unrealistic expectations. But I don’t think that people’s preferences are very malleable. Once people grow up with a schema of what’s attractive, I don’t think it changes much. When preferences change, it’s usually through experience, rather than through reflection. While people acting based on their current preferences may “marginalize” others who don’t match those preferences, I don’t think they are necessarily wronging the people they pass over. The blame for close-mindedness mostly should go to society, not to individuals.

My stance is to attempt to deal with women’s preferences in the present (which is why I study pickup), while criticizing society for promoting the narrow notions of masculinity that many women internalize in their preferences in men.

This whole discussion is also reminding me of how caught up these topics can get in “rights”. As if human rights are the only axis of good and positive behavior. It’s entirely possible to be a total asshole without ever violating anyone’s rights, and whilst only acting within your own rights.

So I disagree with Miguel’s assertion that men or women have an obligation (in the strong ethical sense) to put effort into considering anyone as a sexual partner.

But I think in both the beta-male and middle-aged-woman cases, we can still call people that willfully ignore those groups assholes. ;-)

It’s important not to give any credence to the idea that a person who can’t find a sexual partner is “marginalized” because of that.

I agree with you that people who can’t find a sexual partner are generally not marginalized by people who reject them. Well, maybe if the rejection is based on some sort of prejudice or preconception, it is a form of marginalization. But if those preconceptions are so internalized, they may be difficult to change, so it’s difficult to argue that marginalization through rejection is necessarily wrong. Once someone’s brain gets kinked in a certain way, it’s hard to get it unkinked.

I like Cessen’s interpretation:

Like, a person may not be attracted to obese people, or super skinny people, or black people, etc. And they have no obligation to have sex with those people. But insofar as these issues are due to social norms and influences, it would be good to work towards change.

The notion implicit in the arguments of Miguel at emporiasexus and Cessen is that in many cases, women’s rejection of men based on certain notions of masculinity is morally equivalent to other sorts of rejection that many people in society look down on, such as rejection based on race or body type.

It seems that most women tend to have a preference for certain markers of maleness and masculinity in men (i.e. traits that are considered more typical of men than of women), but what “counts” as masculinity gets heavily influenced by society, and all sorts of prejudices seep in.

I fully support women making choices in men based on narrow notions of masculinity. If that’s how their brains have gotten kinked, then there isn’t much else that they can do. But there are all sorts of weird narrow ideas that go into the notions of masculinity that influence women’s preferences, and I think it’s perfectly justified for men to be frustrated about that influence.

I’m going to offer some examples of ideas about masculinity which bother me; I’m not claiming that most women hold all of them, or that any one of them is a deal-breaker towards women. But I do think that ideas like these add up and influence many women’s perceptions of a man’s masculinity (and therefore, of his attractiveness). While supporting the right of women to make decisions based on these notions of masculinity, in many cases I question whether women really need men to have these things, and whether such a preference would really last upon reflection.

– Expecting men to make substantially more money than her

– Maintaining certain markers of appearances, and avoidance feminine-typed or gay-typed markers, such as long hair, jewelry, makeup, or tight clothing.

– The notion that sweet drinks are “girly drinks,” and men who drink them are less masculine (as if submitting to the norm of burning one’s throat with chemicals is somehow more masculine)

– Expecting men to always know what to do in bed and looking down on them if they ask how to please her (For instance, the second time I slept with someone, I asked her to help find her clit. She said, “you have to find it,” even though she knew I was very inexperienced. I couldn’t. She has every right to her preference for a guy who doesn’t need help in bed, but I hope it’s obvious to everyone how her preference led to a lose-lose situation: I felt incompetent and she didn’t get pleasured.)

– Reciprocating in bed. Some women see men who mainly take pleasure rather than giving it, as more masculine. A friend of mine used to take more effort to pleasure women, but he says that they often wouldn’t appreciate it and treated him as less masculine. Now he just has women please him, and he says that the women he dates respond much better.

– Paying for dates can be viewed as masculine by some women, whereas not paying is viewed as more masculine by other women. Many examples of chivalry fall into the category also. Some women love it, some hate, but a lot of courteous or altruistic behavior gets linked to masculinity.

– Being stoic, and hiding vulnerability. Of course, it makes sense if stoic women want equally stoic men, and there is nothing wrong with wanting a partner who has their shit together emotionally. But extreme levels of stoicism being expected can approach dehumanization.

– Expecting guys to initiate everything. What percentage of women with this preference actually need it?

– Expecting guys to initiate based on guesses about consent, and looking down on guys who attempt verbal communication about consent beyond the norm for the culture (this preference puts men in horrible double-binds, and trains them into habits that might feel overly-presumptuous to other women)

– Expecting men to make most of the decisions. With many women I’ve dated, they’ve expected me to plan dates every time, like choosing restaurants, etc… Sometimes they didn’t feel very strongly, or sometimes I felt that they did have preferences, and were expecting me to guess them. Yet since I’m not a super-decisive person, I felt resentment for being thrust into the role of the Decider merely because I was the guy. While I can understand why someone wants to date someone who decisively plans great dates, I feel the same way! (In other news, I want candy to rain on my house.)

– Viewing violence towards men (or towards women) as an expression of masculinity. This one is less common in white, middle-class liberal cultures, but it is more common practically everywhere else.

There are a bunch of other preferences that I have mixed feelings about, such as preferences for confidence, cockiness, arrogance, dominance, high(er) social skills, high political/artistic/musical accomplishment, muscularity, or men making most (but not all) of the sexual initiatives. These preferences have a cultural component, but they are present in so many cultures that they may have a biological component, too, in which case they could be hard to change.

As for the rest of the list, those are preferences that aren’t all universal in women, but that aren’t uncommon, either, particularly in some cultures/subcultures. The support of women’s right to choose men based on the construction of masculinity they’ve internalized doesn’t mean that we can’t criticize that notion of masculinity. Nor does it mean that we can’t point out the resulting preferences women hold are often screwed up. “Screwed up” doesn’t mean that those women “should” be making different choices, but it does mean that those preferences can be sexist (e.g. thinking that a man that doesn’t make substantially more than her is “less of a man” and unworthy as a mate, or that women are entitled to have men pay for dates). Or those preferences can result in shooting both people in the foot (e.g. my anecdote about the girl who wouldn’t tell me where her clit was, or women who expect men to initiate based on major guesswork about consent.)

I find it strange how feminists often criticize the construction of masculinity, but they don’t seem to talk much about how it is internalized and applied by many women in heterosexual interactions. I think it would be a good thing if women were to be more reflective about these preferences, but if they are deeply ingrained, then there is a limit to how much we can actually criticize women based on them. I’m not holding my breath for the present generation of women to change, so I fulfill some of these expectations, reject others, or seek women who hold less screwed up notions of masculinity.

It’s important not to give any credence to the idea that a person who can’t find a sexual partner is “marginalized” because of that.

If someone can’t find a sexual partner over multiple years (particularly someone who isn’t very low on conventional attractiveness, has no psychological disorders, and isn’t a massive asshole), then something is horribly, horribly wrong. The people who are rejecting them may not have marginalized them… but someone else has. I hypothesize that it’s extremely rare that people grow up to be absolute failures in dating without some sort of external intervention from society, peers, or their family. A person who is involuntarily celibate for years represents a massive failure of society.

Here’s a common way it plays out for guys (described in the extreme in Gilmartin’s work on love-shyness:
– A guy starts out introverted and sensitivity, lacking masculine qualities expected for boys
– He gets bullied or ostracized (particularly physically in America, with rough-and-tumble sports)
– He reaches puberty with deficiencies in confidence and social skills, and often shyness and social anxiety, causing him to fail to attract female attention
– Without female attention, he never learns all the heterosexual rituals, and falls massively behind other guys in experience with women. It can take years for him to catch up, if ever. Throw in a little parental maltreatment, or feminist negative messages about male sexuality, and his dating potential is doomed.

Of course, he gets all the standard lies about female preferences (such as the notion that women primarily want respectful, gentlemanly men who buy them flowers), and unlike socially skilled stereotypically masculine men, he doesn’t have the experience with women to know any better.

Dating for men is heavily loaded on certain personality traits, behaviors, and skills. Confidence, social skills, and experience are important for men to a greater degree than for women in attracting mates (which is not to say that those traits aren’t important at all for women). There are many ways that social development for men can be disturbed, and if it gets inhibited, then they get a double-whammy of their future sexual success being inhibited, also. Nerdy, anxious women who hit high school have a hard time; nerdy, anxious men who hit high school in the U.S. are sexual untouchables, even if they are a good-looking.

There are many forms of abuse from parents or peers, even relatively minor ones, that can massively damage a male’s sexual future. Of course, abuse hurts women’s sexual future, also, but I’m hypothesizing that certain minor and highly common forms of abuse damage men’s sexual future more, because men need higher self-confidence and social skills to be considered as mates. In the case of bullying, that’s an obvious form of marginalization, and it’s often gendered, particularly when a blind-eye is turned to male-on-male bullying.

With guys, it’s quite common to see men with pleasant personalities, no major character flaws, high intelligence, and at least average looks, who are nevertheless highly impaired in dating women… merely because they didn’t quite make the cut for social skills, confidence, and masculinity during their teens, and consequently never learned the ropes with women. It just takes a lil’ abuse or exclusion during childhood to set a boy up so he won’t make the cut during puberty. Without studying pickup and seduction, I would still be in this situation. The stutter, the shyness, the fidgety body language, and the inability to make eye contact that handicapped with me with women weren’t expressions of myself, they were psychological scars from what was done to me and considered normal on American playgrounds.

Consistent sexual rejection probably isn’t marginalization in and of itself, but it often comes because a history of marginalization has artificially depressed someone’s attractiveness and social abilities through absolutely no fault of their own. Furthermore, difficulty finding a mate can lead to more marginalization, if people assume that someone is a loser who deserves it.

People have been mating for eons; most people are wired to want to mate, and to make efforts to do so. Moreover, we are descendants of a long line of people who mated successfully. So if we see a decent person falling far behind the dating success of their peers of similar physical attractiveness, we should be suspicious. The more that person has going for them, the more suspicious we should be. Behind most involuntarily celibate people, there is probably a lurking bully, a meddling parent, or a pack of lies about how dating works.

Well, about characteristics that shouldn’t outright disclassify people from the dating pool. Is being trans.

Especially when it’s not visible physically (ie you see her in person and are attracted, find her personality and tastes interesting – but the moment you learn she’s trans, dealbreaker).

Personally, if I get someone to the “is attracted stage”, 75%-90% of the time I get rejected. What diminishes the chances of rejection: BDSM community member, transgender in some way, bisexual, physically less desirable (ie fat guy).

I went to pains to not put it on my profile that I was trans, because people usually put in that they’re transsexual when they’re cross-dressers, and this doesn’t represent me at all. Instead I go on a concise and precise explanation about what it means physically or otherwise. To avoid misinformation which is rampant. Still doesn’t change a thing – but if it was marked on my profile, very few would contact me.

While supporting the right of women to make decisions based on these notions of masculinity, in many cases I question whether women really need men to have these things, and whether such a preference would really last upon reflection.

I agree most women don’t need all the points you named, even if they want someone who is masculine.

– Expecting men to make substantially more money than her

Really shooting yourself in the foot as a woman, when you’re university-educated, and still expect that…expect that if you’re stay-at-home, underemployed, unambitious, with bad prospects with regards to employment for any reason – at least then it’s reasonable.

I can expect that – my income when working was 17,000$ a year before taxes. Now it’s 7,000$ a year, no taxes. Beating that income means working full-time at minimum wage or better…see, easy.

– Maintaining certain markers of appearances, and avoidance feminine-typed or gay-typed markers, such as long hair, jewelry, makeup, or tight clothing.

I personally love long hair, on myself and others, regardless of sex. Though it’s more appealing on men both because 1) its rarer 2) I date men mainly. If it wasn’t as rare on men, I’d still like it as much, but it would hardly be a criteria since it would be super common.

Personally I wear very little jewelry, and won’t be against someone wearing jewelry in good taste (of any sex). If it becomes tacky, it’s something else (again, for both sexes). I wear a “girly watch” and have double-pierced ears with piercing studs in one set of holes, the others usually have nothing. That’s toned-down beyond what I’d expect of anyone, but it’s definitely not tacky. Btw the ears were pierced nearly 5 years ago, I just prefer those studs.

– The notion that sweet drinks are “girly drinks,” and men who drink them are less masculine (as if submitting to the norm of burning one’s throat with chemicals is somehow more masculine)

Nah, and if you know those drinks, get me to know about them. It’s good conversation to me. And since I’m not too knowledgeable about drinks, I get to know new stuff. Btw Amarulla tastes great (on its own or in coffee/hot chocolate).

I also like harder drinks, but won’t fault someone for their preferences. I drink shooter rum every weekend. And we found orange soft drinks were ideal to remove the after-taste.

– Expecting men to always know what to do in bed and looking down on them if they ask how to please her

Well, I was more or less completely inexperienced, so I did look up to him to teach me some, but not because he has a dick. We try stuff that is new to both of us often enough, we just talk about it first – and both of us chime in about what we like or don’t like about one thing or another.

– Reciprocating in bed. Some women see men who mainly take pleasure rather than giving it, as more masculine.

Well, being anorgasmic, what overstimulating does to me is just make me really twitchy like a nerve overload, with no release. It actually hurts at some point, like being tickled too much. So I don’t expect him to bring me to orgasm. He can give me pleasure in other not-necessarily-sexual ways, and does.

– Paying for dates can be viewed as masculine by some women, whereas not paying is viewed as more masculine by other women.

Got no opinion there. I think the one who can pay best if unequal earnings, should cover the bill. If I’m on welfare and barely make ends meet, and you’re not – don’t expect me to cover a bill that would screw me for 2 months worth. If I was richer, I’d consider covering it all – he probably would prefer paying his own way then.

– Being stoic, and hiding vulnerability. Of course, it makes sense if stoic women want equally stoic men, and there is nothing wrong with wanting a partner who has their shit together emotionally. But extreme levels of stoicism being expected can approach dehumanization.

Yeah, that’s a fucked up expectation. I don’t expect him to never be sad, or crying. Or never be angry. I expect him to be fully human, like me.

– Expecting guys to initiate everything. What percentage of women with this preference actually need it?

I sometimes initiate. But we’re already together. My initiation is more about cuddling and kissing, but if he’s in the mood, it can lead to more.

– Expecting guys to initiate based on guesses about consent, and looking down on guys who attempt verbal communication about consent beyond the norm for the culture (this preference puts men in horrible double-binds, and trains them into habits that might feel overly-presumptuous to other women)

I never really thought about it. I prefer someone I don’t know well to ask, just so I’m sure. Someone I know well enough (romantically), we would know signals between each other.

– Expecting men to make most of the decisions. With many women I’ve dated, they’ve expected me to plan dates every time, like choosing restaurants, etc… Sometimes they didn’t feel very strongly, or sometimes I felt that they did have preferences, and were expecting me to guess them. Yet since I’m not a super-decisive person, I felt resentment for being thrust into the role of the Decider merely because I was the guy. While I can understand why someone wants to date someone who decisively plans great dates, I feel the same way! (In other news, I want candy to rain on my house.)

I like to discuss date plans. I’m picky with food (much of what people take for granted as food would make me throw up, including mayonnaise, mustard and pickles), which makes me pick much of what I want to eat, though I occasionally eat new stuff too.

I do have a preference for dominant men, though that’s mainly because I’m a submissive woman, not because it makes them more masculine or anything.

I remember seeing an episode of Ally McBeal about 10 years ago in which a young Lisa Edelstein (Dr. Cuddy from House) plays a trans woman and one of the male lawyers is dating her, makes an effort once he learns about her being trans, but ultimately wasn’t able to keep dating her.

To be honest, I don’t know how I would react upon the revelation that a girl I was attracted to was trans, never happened to date. But I instinctively feel that it would change something…

I wonder – my guess would be that bein trans would matter less for men who are particularly secure in their sexuality as opposed to men who aren’t so secure (probably most). Is that your experience? Or is it impossible to tell?

Well, about characteristics that shouldn’t outright disclassify people from the dating pool. Is being trans.

Especially when it’s not visible physically (ie you see her in person and are attracted, find her personality and tastes interesting – but the moment you learn she’s trans, dealbreaker).

Personally, if I get someone to the “is attracted stage”, 75%-90% of the time I get rejected. What diminishes the chances of rejection: BDSM community member, transgender in some way, bisexual, physically less desirable (ie fat guy).

Damn… that sucks. *big hugs!*

I think that well could have been me a couple years ago, I’m sad to say.

More recently, though, someone I was attracted to came out as trans to me, and I was surprised at how little it affected my feelings. I was kind of expecting to be more transphobic. Heh. She’s already dating someone, though. And I have no idea if she would reciprocate those feeling anyway.

But I still sometimes catch myself thinking of trans women as a class as not “really” being female, even if it doesn’t come up in individual cases like above. It’s weird.

Speaking from my own experience, I think it’s actually really helpful if I don’t know that someone is trans when I first get to know them (not that there are any obligations). It helps bypass my transphobia. ;-)

I’d rather not use specific examples from my life for a few reasons (I’m writing an article on this, for one thing, and for another, some of the PUAs I know in person are reading this thread). But in The Game, there’s an example of a PUA who is really great at sleeping with women, but essentially argues them into it. He’ll get them talking about their fantasy selves or whatever (maybe by asking, “So do you think of yourself as liberated?”) and then once he gets them to say something like that, he’ll start pushing boundaries. When they resist, he’ll say something like, “I thought you were so liberated.” This is really, really manipulative and not cool.

Where in The Game was this part? What was the handle of the PUA? I have a PDF version of The Game, and I can’t find anything search for the word “liberated.” I’ve heard similar stuff done with the word “adventurous.” I’ve been uncomfortable with this tactic, because it could lead someone to go along for unhealthy reasons (e.g. to protect self-image, rather than actual desire). On the other hand, I could also imagine the same thing being interpreted as a sort of teasing or flirting, as Sam observes. Like with many sexual behaviors (I say “sexual behaviors,” not “PUA tactics,” because plenty of men and women do the same stuff outside the seduction community), I think the result depends on how the tactic is executed, and who the audience is. I would recommend against the tactic myself on ethical grounds, but I could also see how someone else could think that it’s ethical, and I’m not sure about the evidence that it is actually harmful beyond causing annoyance.

I wonder – my guess would be that bein trans would matter less for men who are particularly secure in their sexuality as opposed to men who aren’t so secure (probably most). Is that your experience? Or is it impossible to tell?

Well, on a dating site, even a BDSM one, it’s hard to tell. Being “secure in their sexuality” could mean being open to all about being into BDSM or at least not hiding it from anyone (ie using real non-blurry face pictures on profile), but it’s not that evident that someone is like that even from their profile – it’s only evident when they’re *not* like that.

My boyfriend is pretty secure in his sexuality for sure. He has certain tastes and was curious about trans people before meeting me. My being very open, and sexually submissive, were two very good points for my side, but not points that only trans women can have.

Some people do not like trans women despite their trans status, but including for it. Like it’s a little plus. There’s a range of fetishism of certain things like hair, legs, skin color and what not – that goes from finding it a nice plus added to the package – up to finding it’s the only thing interesting about the package – and my boyfriend is the former, I doubt I could stand the latter.

I also think the former is healthy, while the latter is a bit too obsessive (ie people who only date blonde women, because they’re blonde, all other standards be damned).

But I still sometimes catch myself thinking of trans women as a class as not “really” being female, even if it doesn’t come up in individual cases like above. It’s weird.

That’s basically what I said on Julian Real’s post about how trans women are misogynists.

I said that people worldwide generally don’t think about trans women, at all, when they think of the category female. They don’t necessarily exclude them, but they nearly always not-include them. Even people sensitive to transphobia issues and who are against it etc.

It’s only when it comes to the context of trans women themselves that then they can be included or not within the category female. And with mixed results…conservatives deny they ever could be female, and so do most radfems online I heard from, mainstream feminists seem to be divided but slowly going towards a “they are female” consensus.

And mainstream people overall seem to not have an opinion or not know about them existing at all. If in a culture where they are more present and visible culturally (Thailand, Brazil), then people will not be ignorant…but generally deny they are female anyways. A survey was done in Thailand about “Ladyboys”. Much of the people thought it was bad karma from a past life (them to be pitied, but not recognized as female), a good part thought it was a mental illness (really deluded males), and a smaller part (15%) accepted them as female (but not sure if on-par with cissexual females).

Note that Thailand does not allow for ID name or sex change, even if they’re the world capital for the surgery. Without a correct ID those trans women are ghettoized into beauty trades (ironically, stereotypically gay male trades) and prostitution only. No career. And they can’t marry either.

I posted about Julian’s post and his censoring (he posted only 1 of my comments) on the “No Open Thread” topic on Feminist Critics.

He called my saying that the term “woman” was generally understood as meaning not-trans-women, as being “regionalist and racist”.

I said that at all because he started the post by announcing that he was defining the term woman as all a bunch of experiences that most trans women won’t or can’t experience (like menstruation, or the doctor saying “it’s a girl!”) and acting as if his definition was all that subversive… I simply pointed out that it was the dominant definition, not subversive at all.

And the whole business of “women gathering together as women who were born and raised as girls”, intended to exclude trans women…well it’s not a special identity group thing…it’s 51% of the population! Any female only group need not say they include or exclude trans women – they’re so few that unless thousands of people come to your thing, probably none would be trans.

It’s not like minorities grouping together to be temporarily free from oppression. It’s like white people or rich people (though rich people ARE a minority lol) gathering together, and saying they identify around that part of their status…and want to gather together to flee oppression.

Their kind of exclusion opens the door to excluding any other minority in the name of common experience. You can identify around the experience of not being a person of color and make a DV shelter that only serves and employs white women. Because it could be triggering to white women to see black women there. That might have passed 60 years ago.

sorry, I should have been more precise – I was – as in the tv show reference I mentioned – referring to heterosexual guys being secure in the sense of not being afraid of being seen as gay by others or not be worried about what dating/having sex with a trans woman could mean for their own heterosexual identity.

Miguel, the author of the emporiasexus blog we talked about above has reacted to Clarisse’s criticism, and I left a comment under the post (link below in the trackbacks). Here’s what I said –

Quote from his post –

“Am I still “entitled” to have friends? Yes, I believe so. Does it follow that I have the “right” to bother any particular individual in my neighborhood, until such time as that person “gives in” and is willing to be my friend? No, I don’t.”

I think you may be looking for this distinction: to be/feel *worthy* of a relationship/sex/friendship (and have that part of your personality respected as a part of your person by being respected as a sexual persona) instead of being/being seen/considered entitled to a relationship/sex/friendship. I am entitled to ask of you what you are entitled to ask of me. We are mutually entitled to be respected as full human beings, and that does involve a recognition of our sexual persona. If that is a given, I think people will be able to feel worthy of attention instead of being entitled to it. This, I think, is a very useful distinction (incidentally made by a commenter on Hugo’s blog) that I believe also implicitly contains a lot about what differentiates confidence from neediness.

Well, given that ES has responded on his blog, I don’t want to pick apart his words too much here. But:

@humbition — But then I have always felt that the syntax of sexual relations makes a big difference, and often I would rather reform the way we think about what we do rather than the behavior itself — if we are more observant we might see that the other’s agency is right there, but we have trained ourselves not to see it.

Could you go into this more?

@Cessen — Like, a person may not be attracted to obese people, or super skinny people, or black people, etc. And they have no obligation to have sex with those people. But insofar as these issues are due to social norms and influences, it would be good to work towards change.

Yeah, THIS.

HR — I encourage people to try to figure out what their actual preferences and priorities are for partners, and attempt to root out unnecessary and unrealistic expectations. But I don’t think that people’s preferences are very malleable. Once people grow up with a schema of what’s attractive, I don’t think it changes much. When preferences change, it’s usually through experience, rather than through reflection. While people acting based on their current preferences may “marginalize” others who don’t match those preferences, I don’t think they are necessarily wronging the people they pass over. The blame for close-mindedness mostly should go to society, not to individuals.

Also THIS.

@Sam — Actually, I did participate in a forum of involuntary celibates of both sexes for a while, and, there as well, the guys seemed to feel worse (“marginalized”) about their situation than the girls.

Well, sure. And when people are having a lot of sex, girls tend to feel worse about their situation than guys …. Maybe a lot of my reaction to this comes down to the feeling that there’s not enough acknowledgment of what’s going on for women in these situations. Like the argument frequently made by PUAs and MRAs and others that it’s supposedly so unfair that women can go out and get laid easily in bars, but the fact that this kind of sex is simply not satisfying for the majority of women is ignored, not to mention the fact that we suffer social penalties (both external and internal) for doing it. It’s like … how useful is it to point out this supposed “advantage” that women enjoy, if we can’t actually enjoy it?

On reflection, I do understand that it’s still useful to break down where the differences are and discuss that. It’s just … really hard to read analyses that one-sidedly make claims about how awesome shit is for women. I would guess that many men on this thread can relate, having observed feminist conversations :P

@HR — Some women see men who mainly take pleasure rather than giving it, as more masculine. A friend of mine used to take more effort to pleasure women, but he says that they often wouldn’t appreciate it and treated him as less masculine. Now he just has women please him, and he says that the women he dates respond much better.

Oh man. You must have known this one would get to me.

1) Is this friend a PUA?

2) What exactly does he mean about women treating him as “less masculine”?

3) Is your friend suuuuure that women “responding better” doesn’t correlate to another change in behavior?

4) What exactly does he mean about women “responding better”? If, as I strongly suspect, this guy is a PUA, how do you think his ideas about female response might have been influenced by PUAdom?

Look, as a woman, I can tell you right now that plenty of guys “respond better” if I act like a goddamn bitch in certain ways. For example, I am absolutely positive that I could make the men in my life spend more money on me than they do, and they might well “value” me more if I did. (My extremely limited experience in getting men to spend a lot of money on me has indicated that guys then feel invested in this weird emotional way. It’s like what PUAs sometimes point out about women tricking themselves mentally into getting attached to men they sleep with — if a woman sleeps with a guy, she has to convince herself that it was a good call, so she post-hoc decides he must have been awesome; same for a man spending money on a woman.)

Point being, this makes me want to make your friend take me out for a nice dinner and then grind my heel into his foot if he tries to kiss me. If I ever master the art of gaming men as thoroughly as “master PUAs” game women, I am going to use it to support myself on the money of misogynistic PUAs :P

Actually I’m not sure what my point was. I’ll calm down and wait for the answers to 1-4.

he gets all the standard lies about female preferences (such as the notion that women primarily want respectful, gentlemanly men who buy them flowers)

It’s not a lie that women want those things. It’s just that women also want other things. A nitpick, maybe, but an important one.

I still don’t have my copy of The Game but I recall that it was a bit right before a chapter break, and Strauss specifically notes that it’s the ugliest PUA he’s ever seen. I think that’s also the scene where he realizes that he’s done learning from gurus and is ready to strike out on his own.

On reflection, I do understand that it’s still useful to break down where the differences are and discuss that. It’s just … really hard to read analyses that one-sidedly make claims about how awesome shit is for women. I would guess that many men on this thread can relate, having observed feminist conversations :P

Heh… this is the understatement of the year.

I never ceases to amaze me how often people (myself included) fail to empathize in that way. It’s so easy to fall into that behavior.

I think particularly with these sorts of issues, there’s a lot of “I won’t acknowledge your issues until you acknowledge mine!” resulting in these weird standoffs/stalemates. And it can be even weirder because often (usually?) people mainly respond to what they disagree with, rather than what they agree with, which can make disagreements seem bigger than they are, or even create apparent disagreements that don’t actually exist as such.

“It’s like … how useful is it to point out this supposed “advantage” that women enjoy, if we can’t actually enjoy it?”

Yeah… fair point. It’s a bit like telling a guy who cannot get laid that he has “male privilege” ;) The grass is greener on the other side, indeed.

“It’s just … really hard to read analyses that one-sidedly make claims about how awesome shit is for women.”

I think we’ve said repeatedly how difficult dating can be for women and that it can be as painful for them as for men, haven’t we? But, yeah, even though a) the grass is greener on the other side, b) I still believe the relative, if only theoretical, relatively easy access to casual sex is a structural advantage.

Last Saturday, I meet a female friend in a bar and she complains to me for like 30 minutes about a guy she had fallen in love with who didn’t want to pursue the relationship because he was moving away, but he was still open to being “friends with benefits”. She then told him that “there’s a line out there of guys who want to be friends with benefits.” So she told him to get in the line.

Having such a line may not give her what she wants “ideally”, she may not even check the line (frquently), but it’s certainly better to have a line than to have none, don’t you think?

Women who can get a “line” of men who want friends with benefits are more like the middle of the “pack”, I would guess. Whereas men who can’t have sex at all are more like the bottom of the “pack”. I don’t see the two as analogous.

so you’re saying that you’d see the occasionally getting sex for the “middle of the pack”-guy as equivalent to the “line-having” “middle of the pack”-woman who is not getting the kind of relationship/sex she wants as equivalent?

I guess this would confirm again my question about whether people prefer bad sex to no sex. Men (say they) do, women (usually say they) don’t.

It’s probably just very hard to understand for men how women can not appreciate having what they would generally love to have so badly.

I’ve been asked about a couple of my comments earlier. First, “syntax.” Partnered sex is a mutual act, and when consenting it takes two to tango. My early college girlfriend and I, way back in the early seventies, used a “sharing” language in preference even to “having sex with” because we wanted to emphasize this to ourselves. Of course it was MacKinnon who said, much later, “man fucks woman, subject verb object.” That is the syntax of “taking advantage of.” I am not very ideological, I think, but this is something I’m ideological about. The mutual nature is not changed by taking submissive roles, or by one party initiating and the other responding. If both are participating and doing so because they want to, they are both exhibiting agency. As the blogger Andrew Sullivan says, “to see what is in front of your nose is a constant struggle.”

So this is my objection to “taking advantage of.” I know what Miguel is actually talking about — you have to act strategically and even “opportunistically” at times — but I’m still very against any language that puts all the agency on one side. It’s a point of agreement between the likes of Thomas and me, though I’m far from following him on some others.

Of course it often happens that an act which is “objectively” mutual is perceived as one-way by someone who has that ultimate belief system.

Ironically the mutuality of desire and sex is not furthered by some of the ways young men, in their teenage years, are taught to be “feminist,” or at least to “put a brake on the runaway train of their desires.”

After my college breakup in some ways I became “re-virginated” and started to experience some of the dynamics people are talking about here, not always — there were some shining moments — but a lot of the time. And it was because I was trying to conform to, without maybe fully understanding, what feminism seemed to be asking of me, that I got in my own way (pre-emptively friend-zoned myself, primarily), in some of the ways we are talking about here.

Men are told, for example, that they overestimate women’s interest in them; that certain body language or behavior is not always an indication of interest (but men can easily convert that “not always” to a “never,” or an “I’d better not risk it”); that they must not make “unwanted” advances (but, as Laura Kipnis once provocatively asked, “how will I know if it’s wanted if I don’t try?”).

A few years ago there was a study which the feminist blogosphere, and everyone else, seemed to treat as confirming how men overestimate women’s sexual or romantic interest in them. But what no one talked about at that time, was that this overestimation occurred with 60% of the men. What about, no one asked, the other 40%? The men who always underestimate women’s interest?

I think that men, either reflecting their own (mis?)understandings of feminist or feminist-jargon things said into their general direction, or else reflecting anti-feminist interpretations of what feminists mean by sexual harassment, or both, often fall into a trap of near total suppression of eros, or in any case of initiating anything. And this leads to an almost willful, but impossible to overcome, underperception of women’s interest.

I think this is partly what leads to the numbers game e.g. what HughRistik and of course eurosabra keep talking about. Of course they may be counting interactions that I just think of as “general friendly encounters.” But if someone has taught himself to underperceive interest — or, which is the same thing, always to doubt it on principle — the odds will seem worse, and his own actions will all the more feel like an imposition on his part.

After about ten years of being loved, I started to have memories of some of the women I knew in my youth, and I began to realize that, yes, some of them may have been interested in me, but I had overlooked the signs. It took that many years of being loved, though. Fortunately there were a few who were maybe more obvious. But in general it was not a matter of my attractiveness at all, but of my obliviousness — an obliviousness that at the time I might have rationalized as “respect.”

Real quick: I had coffee with Jill from Feministe today and we had a conversation about the concept of privilege in which it became clear that her feelings about the word are closer to, I think, Sam’s (for example) than mine. It was quite entertaining.

“But in The Game, there’s an example of a PUA who is really great at sleeping with women, but essentially argues them into it. He’ll get them talking about their fantasy selves or whatever (maybe by asking, “So do you think of yourself as liberated?”) and then once he gets them to say something like that, he’ll start pushing boundaries. When they resist, he’ll say something like, “I thought you were so liberated.””

I’ve googled a bit and found one of his seminars on youtube, but didn’t watch it yet. He seems like a rather unpleasant person to me (like: bad alpha male/dark triad), and he’s apparently more interested in domination as demonstration of dominance than as a source of mutual enjoyment.

The part Clarisse mentions comes right after this – “His philosophy was to never lie to a female. He prided himself on bedding women by trapping them with their own words.”

I don’t know… but seeing him in the youtube video, I can’t imagine any women being “trapped” after him saying “I thought you were spontaneous” who wasn’t looking for that kind of thing before. If he’s never lying, if he’s always as asshole-direct as both Strauss and some googled forum entries claim he is (and just listening to a minute or so of one of the videos I sort of think that he wouldn’t be a great performer of anything but himself), then I think his “trap” wouldn’t be a trap as much as it was rather clear statement about who he is and how he will behave, not just, but also in bed (“the only lies I’ll ever tell are: “I won’t come in your mouth”, and “I’ll just rub it around your ass”).

I think in context what he’s saying is more like this: I’ve clearly demonstrated I’m an ass, and I’m telling you again right now. I’ve given you plenty of opportunity to reject me. If you weren’t into it you’d have left already. So stop pretending…

As I said above, I think this has pretty much nothing to do with “game”, but a lot with being able to find women who are indeed looking for a guy with a borderline sociopathic personality who isn’t even trying to hide it.

Just watched some more of one of the guy’s seminars on youtube. I think he’s even worse than I thought after seeing the brief clip earlier, but this behaviour is so apparently bad (and misogynist, dare I say it? “You don’t need her to be a friend, you just need a pussy.”) so I really can’t think of it as being “manipulative”.

@humbition — But what no one talked about at that time, was that this overestimation occurred with 60% of the men. What about, no one asked, the other 40%? The men who always underestimatewomen’s interest?

Right, okay. And from here my mind goes right back into the demographic issues we’ve touched on already. So maybe 60% of men are routinely overestimating interest, but some percentage of men are not. I would bet that of the men who read Internet discussions on gender, the percentage who are routinely overestimating interest is not as high as 60%, although I would guess it is not negligible either.

(This also gets into the difference of experience that Sam and I were just hashing out. Women’s experience of sex seems to just be too different for our attraction to be transparent to men, because everyone always assumes that other people experience things the way they do; men assume we are attracted the same way they are, that orgasm means the same thing for us as it does for them, and on and on and on …. A man may realize that a woman is interested but not realize that the fact that a woman is interested does not mean the same thing that it would mean if he were interested in her. He may overestimate her pure sexual interest, for example, rather than seeing the complex and somewhat inchoate “I like this guy, I feel emotionally connected to this guy, also he’s kind of cute …” pattern that’s a bit more typical of female attraction, I think ….)

I guess the interesting question for me at this point is, how to present feminist arguments in this context. You can’t communicate with everyone all the time, but you can make educated guesses about who the majority of your audience is, and try to figure out a message that will work for them. I, for example, am banking on the idea that men who are attracted to gender studies conversations are (a) less confident or (b) less normative or (c) already at least somewhat more feminist than average or (d) some combination of the above. But I still get nervous because any message I put out (esp. on the internet) can end up pretty much anywhere.

After about ten years of being loved, I started to have memories of some of the women I knew in my youth, and I began to realize that, yes, some of them may have been interested in me, but I had overlooked the signs. It took that many years of being loved, though.

Huh. This sounds weirdly parallel to my own experience of requiring many years of being loved before I was able to really talk about and read sexual desire in a way that made any sense and felt mutual to me.

I’ve noticed before that it seems like people require a certain amount of romantic success and positive experience before they can really start unraveling this negative social programming. I’m not convinced the unraveling part can happen without the positive experiences and success? Maybe it can from hearing the stories of other people who are doing it?

@Sam — I don’t think anyone really wants to be treated badly and less like a person, though — not unless it’s within a consensual framework, like BDSM. So I take issue with the idea that there are some women who really want a sociopathic asshole. I would guess that there are women who react strongly to sociopathic assholery, but I would also guess that those women would rather have the sociopathic assholery accessible but not there all the time. Does this make sense?

I guess I’d have to see David X in action to make any genuine assertions about how he really picks up women. All we have are his testimonials about how he does it, which are quite suspect, especially given how much he hates women :P Maybe I should go through more field reports. Not right now though. I already have a headache and more FRs will surely complicate it.

I firmly think that the positive success is required before overcoming the negative social programming. Stories are definitely not enough (lonely people tend to feel that stories of successful romance are about some different species, not them, not possibly them). And what is somewhat unfortunate in my case, is that a period of lack of success actually somewhat washed away the effects of a previous period of positive success… and that happened twice, or even more.

Even now, the problem with your definition, Clarisse, of what female attraction is like (emotional connection plus some feeling the guy is cute) is as follows: I might have sensed that a woman feels that way about me, but I would not have felt entitled (using that word with malice aforethought), without a more definite indication on her part (the kind that is not always forthcoming), to pursue more than a platonic friendship. (Not that that is exactly a problem now, mind you, as I have been monogamous for 22 years…with someone who was a bit clearer in her interest.)

And I am the absolute king of platonic friendships with women, judging indeed by the ones who seek me out to be facebook friends after thirty years. They are real friendships and satisfying.

Nevertheless I find the “feminist” (scare quotes definitely intended) discourse on the “nice guy” to be very disconcerting and upsetting at a visceral level. It is not quite as upsetting as when I first encountered it six years ago, but it still gets strangely under my skin, for all that I might make lists in my head about why it does not exactly fit my younger self…

I think the penchant for frontloading younger people, men particularly, with rules, rules, and rules — the context of which they hardly understand without having had some wons and losses in the game of the heart — is a big part of the problem. The rules get mixed in with guilt and shame and become a part of what has to be overcome; and then people don’t understand that “feminism” becomes part of the shame-guilt-baggage. It isn’t “feminism” in the sense of a social movement, or Susie Bright; we know what “feminism” it is. It’s the kind that inherits the rhetorical and social manipulation techniques of Christianity. (Just tonight I experienced these, by the way, with a group of vegetarians — they didn’t recruit me.)

I am not quite sure however how I got into this dynamic, way before its proper historical period. I am glad that I was never lectured negatively about my sexuality by any official or quasi-official authority, such as a college orientation or high school assembly or the like. I am afraid that given my own tendencies, it might have closed me up completely, like some of the young people who are posting now.

“Huh. This sounds weirdly parallel to my own experience of requiring many years of being loved before I was able to really talk about and read sexual desire in a way that made any sense and felt mutual to me.

I’ve noticed before that it seems like people require a certain amount of romantic success and positive experience before they can really start unraveling this negative social programming. I’m not convinced the unraveling part can happen without the positive experiences and success? Maybe it can from hearing the stories of other people who are doing it?”

I don’t think so. When you get past a certain point, your sense off what’s a negative message gets inverted. You start to see isolating yourself as an act of heroism that keeps humanity, and women in paticular, save from a dangerous monster. You take pride in your discipline and self-control, and actively seek out stories of men in abusive relationships to bolster your sense of superiority.

This also gets into the difference of experience that Sam and I were just hashing out. Women’s experience of sex seems to just be too different for our attraction to be transparent to men, because everyone always assumes that other people experience things the way they do; men assume we are attracted the same way they are, that orgasm means the same thing for us as it does for them, and on and on and on

I think for me a lot of it is that I want it to mean the same thing. My partner’s sexuality being radically different from mine is a really scary idea to me. I’m not sure why, but I do know it is the case. Possibly some of it comes from wanting validation of my sexuality (e.g. if my female partner’s sexuality is like that too, then my sexuality must not be toxic) and some of it comes from wanting validation of my sexual needs (e.g. if she gets turned on quickly and easily, then it’s not a shameful unworthy-of-accommodation thing that I do too). I think a lot of it has to do with validation of some kind. If women’s sexuality is like mine, then it lends validity to my sexuality. Total BS of course (my sexuality is valid and worthy regardless), but it’s one of those things that’s tricky to get over.

@humbition — I firmly think that the positive success is required before overcoming the negative social programming.

One thing that also concerns me about this pattern is that stereotypical success appears to be what’s often required before you can start really dealing with the negative shit. At least for many people. But the thing is, this often seems to mean that people have to act within some really gross existing scripts. Or do they? I’m not sure.

Okay, actually I just realized that I already tried to articulate this idea within an email I sent someone recently, so I’ll just quote myself:

One idea that I’ve had before but haven’t quite articulated (though I’ve thought through bits of it) goes like this. In order to engage with women most successfully, men have to get over their anxieties, often by proving that they can fuck a lot of us. In order to engage with men most successfully, women have to get over our anxieties, often by proving that we can make them crazy about us. Unfortunately these things are often seen as mutually exclusive. And it’s much easier for people to be laid-back and ethical about dating when they’ve had success dating in the past. For example, I am 95% sure that I am only capable of being as casual/”rational” about sex as I am, without serious emotional problems, because I’ve gone through a number of men who (a) respected my boundaries and (b) were nuts about me. Point being: I worry sometimes that while I really want to teach people to be laid-back, ethical, and cool about romance and sex, it is actually impossible to teach this effectively unless I teach them to be super “successful” first. And it’s actually impossible to teach men and women to be super “successful” in ways that leads everyone to get what they want, given that men need to rack up sexual conquests without emotion, and women need to rack up emotional conquests without (or with less) sex. Or is it?

@Recall — I don’t think so. When you get past a certain point, your sense off what’s a negative message gets inverted. You start to see isolating yourself as an act of heroism that keeps humanity, and women in paticular, save from a dangerous monster. You take pride in your discipline and self-control, and actively seek out stories of men in abusive relationships to bolster your sense of superiority.

Makes a LOT of sense. Strongly resembles the actions of women who reinforce gender oppression because they themselves have bought into it and need to feel okay about themselves. I remember that at one point when I was pre-orgasmic I found one article on the internet that made me feel absolutely sick … I can’t find it now, but the general thesis was “Women are way too bitchy and are ‘just jealous’ of men for [generally] being able to have orgasms more easily; women should quit being bitchy and should basically just deal with whatever their husbands [husbands, of course, not boyfriends or lovers] throw at them; maybe if you try SITTING DOWN AND SHUTTING UP you’ll actually be able to have orgasms. Also, here are a bunch of warning signs that I’m in an abusive relationship.” It was written by a woman. It upset me for days.

(* Previous paragraph edited for additional details about the article)

@Cessen — My partner’s sexuality being radically different from mine is a really scary idea to me.

well, that’s understandable …. It makes it a lot harder to understand what’s going on in their head, right? I get nervous when I think about my partners’ sexuality being radically different from mine, too. Less so nowadays, because it’s become obvious that I myself am so non-normative, and I’ve hammered my own “people are different” slogan into my head.

Still, though, I sometimes really feel grossed out and unhappy when I am confronted with particularly strong examples of male sexuality being generally different from female sexuality. No matter how much I realize it’s not true of all men, and no matter how much I take ownership of my own fantasies.

I think that reading The Game would have upset me a lot more 5 years ago than it does now; now, that book just mostly amuses me, I think because Strauss comes across as such a human being and I feel like I can relate to him a lot. But there are definitely threads on PUA fora that feel like more-or-less continuous assaults on my self-esteem. I got so upset about one the other night that my dad even noticed that I was upset and had to give me a pep talk. (Memorable lines — Me: “Dad, would you do nothing but sleep with women my age if you thought you could get away with it?” Dad: “Sweetheart, I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of women your age are not nearly as interesting as you are.”)

Still, though, I sometimes really feel grossed out and unhappy when I am confronted with particularly strong examples of male sexuality being generally different from female sexuality.

It occurs to me that both of us have significant experience with our sexuality not being respected, and even being ridiculed. If I felt confident that my sexuality would be respected and embraced by my partners, I doubt these things would bother me so much. But I don’t, so… the differences trigger insecurities. I constantly feel on the defensive about the way my sexuality works.

(Memorable lines — Me: “Dad, would you do nothing but sleep with women my age if you thought you could get away with it?” Dad: “Sweetheart, I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of women your age are not nearly as interesting as you are.”)

Ha ha. Truth.

I was talking with a friend and a woman acquiantence a month or so ago, and I commented that I really wasn’t interested in dating women significantly younger than myself. They both seemed shocked. And the woman in particular almost seemed to try to convince me that I should. It was weird.

They both seemed shocked. And the woman in particular almost seemed to try to convince me that I should. It was weird.

I think I know where this comes from, actually. It’s like …. “I’m so used to hearing that men want younger women, surely this one must too, and if he’s claiming that he doesn’t then he’s probably only claiming that because he doesn’t want to hurt my feelings because he recognizes that this creates nasty pressure for women and feels bad about subjecting me to that pressure. So therefore, I will try to make as much space as possible for him to admit how he REALLY feels.” When I was younger I went through similar processes around this topic, as well as porn, etc. “Oh, you SAY you don’t like this thing, but EVERYONE KNOWS that men like this thing, so you’re just CLAIMING you don’t like this thing out of misguided sensitivity. Well, I would rather you were honest than sensitive and I will prove it by showing that it is totally cool with me that you prefer this thing!”

When I was younger I went through similar processes around this topic, as well as porn, etc. “Oh, you SAY you don’t like this thing, but EVERYONE KNOWS that men like this thing, so you’re just CLAIMING you don’t like this thing out of misguided sensitivity. Well, I would rather you were honest than sensitive and I will prove it by showing that it is totally cool with me that you prefer this thing!”

That’s a weird thing to me.

Mainly because it *pushes these people* into normalization.

If my boyfriend says he likes small breasts and he likes bigger breasts too, for different reasons. My first reflex won’t be to say/think “Men all like big breasts, therefore he’s lying”. I might be curious and ask what he likes about it, if he even knows (sometimes its not evident even for self), but thinking the worst possible thing sets you up to make them fit the stereotype they intentionally or unintentionally avoided.

Before I even knew I was trans, I would disavow male stereotypes in war-of-the-sexes arguments, saying that they weren’t universal, since I wasn’t espousing them. I would often be made to feel (by the female ones in that argument) that I was more or less defective for it.

And by romantic success, I was certainly made to feel defective, unwanted and at best “able to work up my game to conform more”, but otherwise a 2/10 (not masculine, aggressive, assertive enough, too feminine body language, and lack of sexual attraction to females, or males if understood as a male).

I was either to conform or to be a failure. This was the message from boys and men, girls and women.

I chose to not care and be my own self, which meant self-isolating and depressing.

I just want to say that, Clarisse, you are really on to something in comment 3836 above.

Because sexual experience involves a learning curve, it simply doesn’t work to try to be revolutionaries rather than reformists about “scripts.” Because saying that the scripts are bad and no longer apply leaves young people with nothing, not with different scripts but with a kind of void. And young people have to fit with each other, and “each other” are, often enough, acting according to the scripts.

HughRistik in the thread you linked epitomizes the reformist rather than revolutionary approach to scripts. He describes himself as operating within them so as to learn them (and find some basis for getting some sexual experience). But then he modifies them in the direction of the more egalitarian and, frankly, comfortable encounters that he actually prefers. And from his descriptions therefore, I think it might be kind of unfair to see him as racking up unemotional conquests. Though this is how he was presenting them in “bro” PUA culture, to which I have a definitely yuck reaction.

For myself I tended to disregard scripts, which has an upside and a downside, but being told what some of the scripts were (in a non-disparaging way) actually was very helpful to me. For example the “third date rule” was helpful; some feminists might dislike that rule because they are afraid that men will get overpushy for sex on the third date, whereas I was just glad to have a time and place and context where I could bring sex up, as it were.

And note, I never had any bro culture in which to discuss my sexual life, in fact I never had anyone to discuss it with at all, which is or used to be pretty much the rule for a lot of would be ethical egalitarian lefty overeducated males. But think of it. I was often totally on my own in figuring it all out, with no one I felt comfortable talking to about it. (I’m talking about the paleolithic period before computer discussion groups, of course…)

Clearly I wasn’t doing anything in order to brag about it with anyone, since I wasn’t talking to anyone about it. So strike that generalization about men… But I didn’t want anyone to judge my life according to sexist criteria either. A lot of this was self chosen.

Some of my most treasured moments I don’t know whether I have shared them with anyone.

“And it’s actually impossible to teach men and women to be super “successful” in ways that leads everyone to get what they want, given that men need to rack up sexual conquests without emotion, and women need to rack up emotional conquests without (or with less) sex. Or is it?”

It’s not.

I’m wondering if you actually believe that female and male sexuality are as inherently different as you make it appear in that quote (and recently, with respect to the value aspect we briefly touched on above). Because if they are, then there’s really nothing we can do about it, then we have to say “nice talking to you” and go back to our respective camps because if our experiences are truly so incommensurable that we cannot fathom what they mean for the other then we won’t even be able to establish a basis for any substancial mutual understanding. Then all this is really teamsports, and no jam session, to stick with that analogy, despite its shortcomings. See I do believe that there is a scarcity aspect that is biologically caused that gives us different starting points and implies marginally different strategies. But I also believe that we are looking for pretty much the same things in sexuality – affirmation, pleasure, intimacy,(implicitly, procreation). Women and men are, in my opinion, pleasure compatible. I believe that the by far larger part of our mental dealing with sexuality is culturally influenced.

I think the larger part of the difference you’re trying to describe is pretty much exactly the Foster-Wallace bit. Would more women want casual sex absent double binds? You bet. Would more men be willing to be emotionally intimate and open themselves up if they were able to not see them as predators for wanting sex (and even *you* say how there’s stuff about male (as opposed to some guys’) sexuality that makes you uncomfortable). You bet.

So, yeah, I believe you are right that success is a crucial element of being able to be relaxed in pretty much everything. Success means, in this respect, in my opinion, especially two related things. One, being confident in one’s value, being perceived as a sexual persona, and related to that, having choice among potential partners. I think that is pretty much the same for both genders.

I don’t know, but the stereotypical women who are actually trying to sell sex for love seem to be quite rare, at least in my environment. And even one I know who is actually looking for her Prince Charming was trying to find a guy to make out with at a party last Friday, because, she said, she does have some needs, occasionally. Incidentally, she’s one of the few women who could not relate to the Foster-Wallace bit.

And most guys I know don’t seem to rack up emotionally unconnected conquests. Sure, it would be far easier to get them into bed than most single girls I know, but that doesn’t mean unconnected, unemotional. If there were less expectations about that emotions vs. physical deal between men and women, then I believe everything would be better. But I do believe in baseline compatibility.

So, yeah, I also believe that it’s possible to help people of both sexes to be super successful with each other, just by accepting their desire where it is (even if that includes scripts you would deem gross) and work from there instead of policing their sexuality again (and, for men, again, from a female point of view). I think opening up and giving confidence in one’s sexual and romantic persona can be done in a mutually helpful fashion.

In the game there’s a guy in Belgrade who’s jumping on the street because he got a phone number! He had the best day in life because he got a phone number, can you believe it? There’s a lot of that hunger out there.

And teaching women that they are probably not going to find Prince Charming and a true love’s kiss if they are looking for him, that making guys crazy about them without giving anything out in return unless they turn out to be Prince Charming is probably even more painful for them than for the guys involved, also seems like a quite compatible strategy.

To be honest, I think a lot, a lot, can be done by getting people to honestly talk about pleasure and sexuality and how important those aspects are for their lives, and I think that your definition of “success” is probably too extreme and stereotypical.

It’s probably like in every change management process – address fears, give opportunity to grow. That *may* include lots of unconnected one night stands, or tons of knights fighting for one Princess, but it probably won’t. At the end of that process of self-reflection, I believe people are going to come down at some point in the middle, and probably one that is a lot more compatible than what you describe in the quote.

As for this –

“I got so upset about one the other night that my dad even noticed that I was upset and had to give me a pep talk. (Memorable lines — Me: “Dad, would you do nothing but sleep with women my age if you thought you could get away with it?” Dad: “Sweetheart, I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of women your age are not nearly as interesting as you are.”)”

Your dad is quite right, there… but I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the “would you do nothing but sleep with women my age”? I mean, would you believe that, if your father were single, it would be wrong for him to date women your age? Why?

As for “older” women, I remember talking to a 23 yo woman from Chicago (hey!) about this once. I told her that the woman I was about to fall in love at the time, who was a bit over 30, seemed seriously worried about 20-something competition. To me, that seemed weird, because she was emotionally accomplished and able to talk about that, she had stories of her own, she was beautiful (but not 20 anymore, obviously). Yet the 23yo Chicagoer told me – yeah, she should be afraid of the competition.

See, I know interesting 20 year olds, and interesting 30 year olds. Not yet a lot of interesting 40 year-olds and older, except professionally. But one of the best flirts this year I had with a 44yo woman who I had guessed was about 29. I don’t think age is nearly as important as personality, and while I am aware that looks are an important variable – there’s really something to be said for the truth of “Something’s gotta give”…

One thing that also concerns me about this pattern is that stereotypical success appears to be what’s often required before you can start really dealing with the negative shit. At least for many people. But the thing is, this often seems to mean that people have to act within some really gross existing scripts. Or do they? I’m not sure.

I think you are getting at something. Men need to experience success with women for their sexual development, to get over past insecurities, and because experience is so important for initiating with women.

A lot of the teachings in the seduction community don’t work because they are true, but rather because they inspire men to try things that lead them to have more success. Successful brings confidence and procedural knowledge, and it’s those that really lead to significant progress, in a feedback cycle. The seduction community works because it encourages guys to throw the kitchen sink at their problems with women, until they eventually find positive feedback in the field.

Thanks to American culture, masculine, extraverted guys get a drop of 3-4+ years on other types of men in learning dating skills. That’s the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree! No wonder these guys clean house so much. If you take practically any guy and have girls all over him during puberty for years, he’ll get good with women, even if he’s a neurotic introvert.

Guys who are overlooked or locked out of the dating world during their teens will have to catch up eventually. Unfortunately, not only do they end up with dating skill deficiencies, but they’ve developed a whole host of anxieties and psychological complexes about worthiness, sexual shame, etc. The deficiencies and anxieties feed into each other.

This process is why we see PUAs learning stuff in their 20’s-50’s that the popular dudes learned at 14 because they happened to be the initial targets of female sexuality.

A guy who has been left out of dating for his youth will have quite a lot of developmental catching up to do. I think this catching up will take different forms for different guys. Some will want a lot of one-night stands, others will want a series of friends with benefits, and others will want a girlfriend. In some form, he will need to get a certain amount of positive female sexual attention to heal the feelings of unworthiness and unattractiveness. It probably varies whether it is more healing to get a small amount of sexual validation from many women, or a large amount from a few women.

Furthermore, keep in mind that a guy lacking dating skills is at a discounted value on the dating market. This means that women can get their hands on him, who don’t represent quite the same package that he does. He can’t quite get noticed by the women with equal “stats” in terms of intelligence, looks, positive personality traits, accomplishments, etc… so instead he will go out with women who don’t make the cut as “relationship material,” in which case the result will be one-night stands or friends with benefits, but not chance for her at a relationship. This is compounded by women’s tendency to aim higher than men when dating (which I’ve finally found evidence for: basically, both sexes ask for people who are slightly less of a package than they perceive themselves, but men ask for less… compare figures 1 and 2).

And contrary to the stereotype by some feminists, men on average don’t have unrealistic expectations for women they date, which is a common silencing tactic towards men complaining of romantic difficulties. The results are obvious from the study I cited. It’s actually women who attempt to “date up” more strongly than men at lower levels of overall attractiveness (e.g. a man who rates himself a 4 wants a woman who is a 5; a woman who rates herself a 4 wants a man who is a 5.7), though at higher levels of attractiveness everyone dates down, but men date down more strongly than women by about 0.25.

This results in an unfortunate situation for both people, where “what you want, you can’t get, and what you can get, you don’t want.” This kind of mismatch can be a win-win, but it can also end up being unhealthy.

When PUAs go through lots of women, it’s not always their optimal choice. They are striving to get to the level of attractiveness where the women they actually want will date them, but they aren’t quite there yet, and PUAs often have no problem having a lot of flings along the way.

I’ve seen several cases of PUA friends who managed to date women of similar physical attractiveness or slightly lower, but who also have like 10-20 IQ less, fewer accomplishments or talents, or often just don’t have their shit together in life professionally or emotionally. Maybe I’m biased since they are my friends, but they just seem like a better package than the women they could date while in that phase, and unsurprisingly, the women didn’t manage to hold onto them long. However, some of these guys later got better with women, and were able to date women who were better matches for longer periods of time.

Because sexual experience involves a learning curve, it simply doesn’t work to try to be revolutionaries rather than reformists about “scripts.” Because saying that the scripts are bad and no longer apply leaves young people with nothing, not with different scripts but with a kind of void. And young people have to fit with each other, and “each other” are, often enough, acting according to the scripts.

This.

HughRistik in the thread you linked epitomizes the reformist rather than revolutionary approach to scripts. He describes himself as operating within them so as to learn them (and find some basis for getting some sexual experience). But then he modifies them in the direction of the more egalitarian and, frankly, comfortable encounters that he actually prefers.

I am a gradualist and a pragmatist about busting gendered scripts.

The more experienced and skilled I get, the easier it is for me to “cut out” gendered behavior that I don’t like. For instance, I don’t have to rely on teasing the heck of women to amplify attraction like many PUAs do. I’ve developed a style that minimally relies on dominance and combativeness, but ramping up other components of attractiveness.

And from his descriptions therefore, I think it might be kind of unfair to see him as racking up unemotional conquests.

I’ve had plenty of flings, but I try not to signal more relationship interest than I’m actually feeling. Most of the time, she and I are on the same page. There have been some cases where I’ve refused sex because of feeling ambivalent about her to an extent that I wouldn’t have wanted to keep seeing her after.

Even short-term flings are never unemotional for me.

My flings would be less numerous if I’d been able to get with people who were better matches for me earlier in my development. I’ve finally started to be able to do that in the last couple years.

I think I know where this comes from, actually. It’s like …. “I’m so used to hearing that men want younger women, surely this one must too, and if he’s claiming that he doesn’t then he’s probably only claiming that because he doesn’t want to hurt my feelings because he recognizes that this creates nasty pressure for women and feels bad about subjecting me to that pressure. So therefore, I will try to make as much space as possible for him to admit how he REALLY feels.”

*nods*

Can you think of any good ways to respond to this kind of reaction? Because I run into it a lot, and it’s extremely disconcerting. And I would love to know a good way to deal with it that actually convinces the woman I’m talking to that I’m not BSing.

@Schala — That’s a weird thing to me. Mainly because it *pushes these people* into normalization.

I completely agree. It’s important to realize that it comes from a defensive reflex though, and not a normalization reflex. (At least for me.) A message that I constantly got growing up was, “Men are dogs, but they’ll never admit it in front of a woman, so anytime a man appears to not be a dog, he is lying.” (Yes, “men are dogs” is a questionable stereotype in itself, but you know what I’m getting at.)

So, for a long time, anytime a man denied a stereotypical male desire, my immediate instinct was to be like “Whatever, it is totally fine, I can handle the fact that you have this stereotypical male desire, please stop lying to me!”

@Sam — I’m wondering if you actually believe that female and male sexuality are as inherently different as you make it appear in that quote (and recently, with respect to the value aspect we briefly touched on above). … See I do believe that there is a scarcity aspect that is biologically caused that gives us different starting points and implies marginally different strategies. But I also believe that we are looking for pretty much the same things in sexuality – affirmation, pleasure, intimacy,(implicitly, procreation). Women and men are, in my opinion, pleasure compatible. I believe that the by far larger part of our mental dealing with sexuality is culturally influenced.

No, I agree with you. The stance I started from when I wrote this entire blog series over a year ago was pretty much the same as yours. I guess … stuff that I’ve been looking into recently (esp. PUAs) has really been influencing me more towards the mainstream adversarial stereotypes. I’ve also always had a somewhat game-y, tactical approach to thinking about romance myself, which is probably one of the reasons I find PUAdom so compelling. But on reflection it is also pretty clear that I don’t actually believe the stereotypes and never have, although they have always scared me and given me anxiety.

So, yeah, I also believe that it’s possible to help people of both sexes to be super successful with each other, just by accepting their desire where it is (even if that includes scripts you would deem gross) and work from there instead of policing their sexuality again (and, for men, again, from a female point of view). I think opening up and giving confidence in one’s sexual and romantic persona can be done in a mutually helpful fashion.

I think this is what I was trying to get at. Where is the line between accepting desire where it is and giving people assistance in navigating gross scripts, vs. busting the scripts? And if people need to succeed before really script-busting, then how much tolerance do we have for success that happens in a way that seems really gross and awful?

Your dad is quite right, there… but I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the “would you do nothing but sleep with women my age”? I mean, would you believe that, if your father were single, it would be wrong for him to date women your age? Why?

Yeah, I guess this makes more sense if I give more context about my dad and me. While my dad has done some gender-y stuff that I find somewhat reprehensible (he wasn’t awesome during the divorce from my mom, for example), he’s always been Super Ethical Exemplar for me in general, and in particular, Best Example Of How Some Men Are Not Dogs. (Again, the men-as-dogs stereotype is problematic, but work with me here.) I don’t see anything particularly wrong with cross-generational sex, and indeed one of my dad’s best friends is a middle-aged professor who consistently has affairs with undergraduates (who aren’t in his classes, for the record).

But even when my dad hasn’t been 100% awesome in his romantic conduct, he’s always been legitimately attracted to women his own age or older. (His current girlfriend, at 53, is about a decade younger than he is, but she’s the first younger one in a while, and dude, she’s still 53.) (This isn’t to say he’s not attracted to women my age — I mean, hey, I’m sure I’ll always be attracted to men my age — but he just isn’t interested in a relationship with women my age.) Which has always been extremely important to me, as an example that says “Hey, there really ARE older men out there who prefer to date accomplished older female scientists or accomplished older businesswomen or whatever as opposed to going immediately for the youngest girl in the room … or at least preferring to do that but not doing it only because it would be rude.”

Given that (as we all know) Clarisse’s #2 insecurity is encroaching age, (right after “I’m a screwed up pervert who will probably ruin her career and romantic life forever by pursuing her sexual desires”), this is a particularly strong effect. And then I encounter stuff on PUA fora that’s like “all men want is much younger women! you know you’d be banging 18 yr olds if you could! so would all other men! quit lying to yourselves, men, and start going out there and gaming 18 yr olds!” and it’s like … mrrraaa. Actually, it intersects particularly badly with the effect I described above in response to Schala (“all men are dogs, they just won’t admit it to YOU”).

Other stuff has upset me on PUA fora too, but I guess that’s an example that interacts particularly strongly with my insecurities.

@HR, your comment makes me wonder how prevalent you think open relationships are in the community.

@Cessen — Can you think of any good ways to respond to this kind of reaction? Because I run into it a lot, and it’s extremely disconcerting. And I would love to know a good way to deal with it that actually convinces the woman I’m talking to that I’m not BSing.

That’s a really hard one. I’m not sure.

I recently experienced a situation that was awkward for a number of reasons, but one reason was that a guy I was interested in was also being hit on by an extremely pretty 21-yr-old. I assumed he had to be interested in her because she was so cute and so young and I kind of backed off as a result. Later we ended up making out and at one point the following conversation happened:

Him: I think I offended that girl.
Me: Oh really? I’m sorry. How did you offend her?
Him: Well, she asked if she was too young for me, and I told her yes.
Me: But she’s so attractive!
Him: That’s true …. But other people [direct stare] are more attractive.

So that worked. It was pretty context-dependent though.

Maybe if you tell People Are Different stories, it will help. eg a simple, though kind of offensive example might be “Are all women attracted to bad boys?” I’ll try to think of something better but for now I have to catch a train.

A message that I constantly got growing up was, “Men are dogs, but they’ll never admit it in front of a woman, so anytime a man appears to not be a dog, he is lying.”

Yup. Guys get this message growing up too. Really strongly. This message played a big part in my own feelings of toxic sexuality. And I suspect it also plays a role in many men behaving the way they do (e.g. some men will embrace it, taking it as a prescriptive message, a message about what it is to “be a man”).

And part of what’s tricky about it is that there are aspects of the stereotype that fit me. Namely, I have a strong sex drive. And so it can be difficult to separate that out and realize, “Hey, so what if I have a strong sex drive? That’s a totally cool thing. That’s actually fantastic. And that doesn’t make me a dog.”

Ironically, in some respects I think my strong and undescerning sex drive lets me be more selective. I don’t have to worry about finding someone that I’ll be attracted to physically/sexually, because that’s most women. So that leaves me free to choose based on other criteria. It’s like, “So you’re sexually attractive? Big whoop. That’s everyone. What else do you have going for you?”

(Unfortunately, at the moment, that “what else do you have going for you?” can be answered with “I’m interested in you”, as that seems to be very scarce in my life right now. But still.)

@Clarisse:

Him: I think I offended that girl.
Me: Oh really? I’m sorry. How did you offend her?
Him: Well, she asked if she was too young for me, and I told her yes.
Me: But she’s so attractive!
Him: That’s true …. But other people [direct stare] are more attractive.

And then I encounter stuff on PUA fora that’s like “all men want is much younger women! you know you’d be banging 18 yr olds if you could! so would all other men! quit lying to yourselves, men, and start going out there and gaming 18 yr olds!”

I’m reminded of something that Dan Savage said at one point. He apparently recieves a lot of mail from guys asking why they (themselves) keep on fucking fat women. And Dan says essentially, “You like fat women. Accept it, embrace it. Be happy.” And it turns out this is really hard to do.

Thing is, there are a lot of pressures on guys to date women that other men (supposedly) think are hot/worth dating. I feel a lot of these pressures myself, and I am certainly not immune to them. It’s like, I worry that if I date a larger woman, for example, that my friends will think I’m settling or that it reflects badly on my self-worth. And I don’t even hang with particularly mainstream friends.

So in the PUA community, I think a lot of what’s going on is that while there are indeed men that genuinely want to date younger women (and there’s nothing wrong with that), there are also a lot of men who don’t. But being able to get the younger women becomes a status thing. “Come on… we all know you want to, you just don’t think it’s possible,” implies, “Come on… if you don’t get the younger women, it’s just because you’re not good enough or because you have low self-esteem.” It becomes a status thing. I noticed this in The Game, too. Lots of talk about “the perfect 10”. To me it was really obvious that it wasn’t just about their attraction to the woman, it was also about status: who can get the most ‘attractive’ women.

@Tamen:
Honestly, I’m not sure. It’s a very diffuse kind of worry that’s not even necessarily limited to people I know. But for the most part, I would say I worry more about the male reaction than the female reaction, yeah.

well, yeah, there’s status competition for men as well, and “scoring HB-points” certainly isn’t the ideal way of appreciating the beauty of the opposite sex, but I’ve always seen this video-game “metaphor” as a helpful way of framing for a lot of the guys. Particularly to deal with rejection. You play a game, you learn the rules, you practice, you get better, you score points, you get to the next level, etc. I suppose if someone is actually getting good at “playing” and is not a complete idiot, he will eventually see understand that he’s using a mental crutch he may no longer need.

“No, I agree with you. … I guess … stuff that I’ve been looking into recently (esp. PUAs) has really been influencing me more towards the mainstream adversarial stereotypes.”

I think that was actually palpable in some of your recent comments… Interestinly, I’ve always found the SC much *less* adversarial than standard stereotypes or, certainly, feminist approaches. But then I’ve not been exposed to stuff like that David X videos before, so, yeah, there’s certainly ugly stuff out there. But even more reason to come up with advice that is both effective and ethical.

Apart from that, I feel like this is exactly the kind of thing we talked about a year ago with the Foster-Wallace story – the questio to which extent there is an actual disparity in desire and to which extent it is culturally constructed and results in double binds. Here’s a slightly edited version of my comment #70 in the original followup thread.

I think what you’re looking at with respect to “success” is a part of the sequencing problem (possibly on a meta level).

“Where is the line between accepting desire where it is and giving people assistance in navigating gross scripts, vs. busting the scripts? And if people need to succeed before really script-busting, then how much tolerance do we have for success that happens in a way that seems really gross and awful?”

A lot of tolerance. A lot. I think it is important to accept that people usually don’t actively choose scripts, but that they will do, in the words of Woody Allen, “whatever works”. And assuming they only have one lifetime to make that whatever work, they will probably choose what appears to be the least painful way to go about it. Of course, that may not be the “rational choice”, but I believe that, in MOST cases, it is a choice that is to be respected. Individuals trump ideology in my moral book, however well intentioned the latter may be.

Of course, if the scripts themselves are absolutely immoral (like non-acceptance of no-means-no), things are different, but merely being appalled by the script choices people make should not be sufficient reason to problematize their sexuality (this is so Foucault ;)).

I also believe your definition of success may be too narrow. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a stream of emotionless one night stands, but, taking myself as an example, I’m not sure if that would add much to my feeling of having become successful with women. Going from being unable to express myself sexually to being able to be perceived as a sexual persona and being able to consistently attract women despite my still apparent problems with physical initiation, that was success for me. Yes, sure, I had to change something in my approach, but, again, having sex merely to increase the score is a part of the problem identified in the Foster Wallace story. And the sequencing is a problem – because of “Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions” (got this from following one of the comments in the feministe-version of your recent sex worker post).

We cannot just change the sequencing, and we cannot just change the value attributions. We need to work with them, we need to be able to give the feeling that their sexuality is also a valuable resource (has inherent value). Because without that, they will not be able to give the women the feeling of passion they need to transcend their own double binds.

Given the current standard mating sequencing, if there should be something like a performance model we need to give men the tools to overcome both natural scarcity effects and cultural value attributions. Men must feel worthy of her in order to be able to create the passionate emotional experience you (and Foster-Wallace) describe.

On age preferences – Interestingly, despite the seemingly established knowledge that men the world over prefer women in their early 20s for fertility reasons, here’s some data that suggests something else – when asked for the age of their ideal mate, men (of I suppose various age brackets) chose, on average, a woman that was 1.8 years younger than them. Women picked men who were on average 3.5 years older then them.

Actually, I think this would be completely brilliant and you should try it. It wouldn’t have to be snarky, you could say it with a playful smile and it would still totally work.

I’m reminded of something that Dan Savage said at one point. He apparently recieves a lot of mail from guys asking why they (themselves) keep on fucking fat women. And Dan says essentially, “You like fat women. Accept it, embrace it. Be happy.” And it turns out this is really hard to do.

This is kind of one of the things I was getting at on the previous incarnation of the Megathread when I talked about pressures from men on other men. I can’t find the comment where I wrote that now, but I seem to recall that I got pushback from other commenters on the idea that pressure from other men to behave in a masculine way is as significant as pressure from women to behave in a masculine way.

@Tamen — Would you say it’s only your male friends perception of the hotness of your date that you care/worry about?

But at the same time, this is a good point. Hooking up with a hot woman provides social proof to other hot women, too, it doesn’t just increase status among men.

@Sam — when asked for the age of their ideal mate, men (of I suppose various age brackets) chose, on average, a woman that was 1.8 years younger than them. Women picked men who were on average 3.5 years older then them.

Didn’t we already learn from the OKC age data post that people actually act more extremely about age preferences than they claim to act?

Didn’t we already learn from the OKC age data post that people actually act more extremely about age preferences than they claim to act?

Sure. But this intersects with several issues, including the social proofing/pressures/status that we were just discussing above, as well as women on OkCupid specifying age ranges that largely exclude younger men (so men respecting that won’t message them). And speaking for myself, I also just generally feel like I don’t have a chance with older women (unless it’s just one or maybe two years older), so I don’t bother trying. I suspect at least some other men feel similarly. I’ll also note that, at least in my case, the girls that have seemed to be interested in me in the past almost universally tend to be a fair bit younger than me. And when there is scarity of romance in my life, it is certainly tempting to just go for it even if they aren’t in my prefered age range, just because they seem available to me.

So I think there are a lot of confounding factors here. I don’t think we can look at who guys (or women!) are messaging/dating and make clear assertions about their actual preferences from that. It’s a complex social phenomenon.

I wanted to report a moment that literally just happened in the life of Clarisse and was hilarious.

I was passing one of Dad’s many bookshelves and noticed DeAngelo’s “Double Your Dating”. I cracked up and insisted on following my dad around his apartment peppering him with questions.

CT: WHEN DID YOU BUY THIS?? DO YOU REALIZE THIS IS FROM THE SAME SUBCULTURE I HAVE BEEN OBSESSING OVER AND TALKING ABOUT ALL THE TIME? I must know all of your impressions about it right now!
Dad: Er … I guess I didn’t realize that. I got on some email list of DeAngelo’s at some point when your mother and I were getting divorced, and I thought it sounded interesting. I never listened to the whole thing, frankly, but it’s not too bad. DeAngelo is a complete egomaniac, but he’s not a complete idiot. He’s not too much of a jerk, either, unlike some of the other materials I’ve seen.
CT: Not too much of a jerk?
Dad: Yeah. Like I said, he’s a complete egomaniac. But he’s not an asshole. I’ve seen a fair amount of material where the guys were such assholes, I couldn’t stand it.
CT: He’s the cocky funny guy, right?
Dad: Yeah. And there’s something to that.
CT: I completely agree.
Dad: I’m not sure how much impact DeAngelo’s stuff had on my behavior though.
CT: Could you say more about that?
Dad: Well, when I started dating again I realized that I was being successful just being myself.

(for reference, my dad is a successful middle-aged-towards-retirement-age lawyer who likes women his own age. Saying “I can just be myself and be successful” is like a 23-year-old female model saying “I can just be myself and be successful”. I chose to let this moment pass without an extensive critique, however.)

CT: Do you think it would have helped you when you were younger?
Dad: Maybe. I’m not sure.
CT: Okay. I’m going to go on the Internet now.

Seeing my dad go through PUA materials, successfully separate asshole stuff from non-asshole stuff, and not become an asshole himself makes me feel a lot better about the subculture, frankly. I suppose it might have been different if he’d been more desperate, but on the other hand, I suspect that if my dad had come upon the materials at a young age he’d be more like HughRistik and less like David X.

It’s so weird how even complete asshole PUAs agree strongly with feminists on a number of topics. This guy is such a huge jerk, but even as he bitches about feminism he says “We just need to be careful what we wish for because feminism and easy sex go hand in hand. If it declines then easy pussy will as well.” Amazing how sexual empowerment for women can also be good for men, isn’t it! Now if only he actually cared at all about female sexual empowerment. Instead,

I don’t even know where to start with this one. I suppose it’s not surprising that if he’s targeting women with low self-esteem (as many PUA techniques are designed to do), women’s responses don’t change if the sex is bad. And of course there’s the traditional problem of women take what they can get during an encounter and not complaining because that’s “bitchy” and considering mediocre sex the price they have to pay in exchange for quasi-romantic access to a guy they really like as a human being, for some reason. It’s also worth noting that for women, those of us who actually believe that men are decent people might do things like have sex with a guy once, not enjoy it that much, but like the guy and then wait until the next encounter to try and negotiate something better based on what we learned about his rhythms and approach last time. I’ve certainly done this. But this guy almost certainly isn’t a good candidate for that, because he hasn’t bothered to learn the first thing about female sexuality. His entire focus is on lasting longer during PIV? Really? Seriously? I mean, don’t get me wrong, lasting longer during PIV is nice, but if that’s the only thing you’re doing to get women off, then no wonder they can’t tell the difference between when you’re actually trying to give them pleasure and when you’re not.

Oh god there is so much more analysis to be done on that last one but I just can’t take it.

Roissy comments on this guy’s blog. More evidence for how the reasonable/non-misogynist PUAs hang out in separate cliques from the really bad ones, who all hang out together.

Okay, sorry, I won’t do that again. Maybe “PUAs who are assholes” should be an off-limits topic for this thread.

“Seeing my dad go through PUA materials, successfully separate asshole stuff from non-asshole stuff, and not become an asshole himself makes me feel a lot better about the subculture, frankly.”

Is this really about the subculture or about a general feeling of relief that some/most men are able to pick and choose advice that is both potentially effective *and* doesn’t contradict their ethics? Because it feels like the latter, and I thought that was the line of thought and conviction that led to you *begin* this discussion in the first place.

“considering mediocre sex the price they have to pay in exchange for quasi-romantic access to a guy they really like as a human being, for some reason.”

And again you’re saying something that kind of strikes me as odd for someone with an explicit sex positive background. And it seems kind of like a new thread in your thinking… you’ve been making this bargain (romance for sex) argument a couple of times lately, while it – in my perception – never really came up before.

I mean, I believe that women and men are looking for marginally different things in general as well as with respect to casual encounters, but I certainly know women who claim to enjoy sex for the sake of sex and not merely as a trade of for romance. And I believe the biggest obstacle to *more* compatibility in both aspects are the Foster-Wallace double binds.

“Okay, sorry, I won’t do that again. Maybe “PUAs who are assholes” should be an off-limits topic for this thread.”

Why? As long as different things are treated differently and as long as the general idea of helping guys to get better with women is not morally questioned, I think it’s important to point out problematic stuff.

“But this guy almost certainly isn’t a good candidate for that, because he hasn’t bothered to learn the first thing about female sexuality.”

My best female friend recently told me about a Cosmo? survey in which it was revealed that, apparently, the most frequent answer heterosexual men gave when asked how many labiae women have was : one (interestingly, gay guys seemed to know the right answer…). So given that status of general knowledge of female genital anatomy, maybe trying to last longer isn’t the worst thing to do ;)

But, of course, there are also other ways to deal with the lack of knowledge situation – I’ve found this 4 part (3 hrs total) British documentary called “the truth about female desire” quite interesting.

Is this really about the subculture or about a general feeling of relief that some/most men are able to pick and choose advice that is both potentially effective *and* doesn’t contradict their ethics?

You’re right … I was getting flippant and ranty again, is all. I actually kind of hate what reading this stuff does to my brain. Okay, it’s not the fault of what I’m reading, and I should have better self-control.

Why? As long as different things are treated differently and as long as the general idea of helping guys to get better with women is not morally questioned, I think it’s important to point out problematic stuff.

I guess I’m just concerned about the potential effects on my mental health :P More seriously, while I do think it’s useful to point out problems, I’m also not sure how useful it is to spend a lot of thread time angrily ranting about problems in the PUA subculture. I mean, we already knew there are plenty of assholes in this subculture, right? How productive is it to be all, “OMG I just found another fucking PUA asshole!”? If that’s all I want to do then I might as well spend all my time on Roissy’s blog.

And again you’re saying something that kind of strikes me as odd for someone with an explicit sex positive background. And it seems kind of like a new thread in your thinking… you’ve been making this bargain (romance for sex) argument a couple of times lately, while it – in my perception – never really came up before.

Huh, interesting. It’s not a new thread in my thinking, but it is a stereotype/assumption that I consistently have to struggle with. While I totally agree that many women enter relationships for the sole or main purpose of sexuality (obviously, since I’m currently one of them), I think that women are encouraged/socially “programmed” to trade sexuality for romance.

It’s kind of a weird thing actually … you have this situation in which there is no longer an assumption that women should trade sex for money/support, but relationship patterns haven’t quite changed to the extent that women are expected to trade sex for, well, satisfying sex. So it’s like the assumption has become that we trade sex for romance/monogamy/love/commitment, whatever those things mean. Both the internal and the external assumption, though it is usually not overt …. One thing I noticed after I started specifically having more encounters that I didn’t want to develop into relationships was that I suddenly got much better at asking for what I wanted *in the moment*, *because* I no longer felt as though I was participating in a sexual exchange for some kind of long-term thing, or using sex as one tool for getting a guy to care about me. (I mean, previously I had been trying to have sex for pleasure, but it was just weirdly easier to push for my own satisfaction once I stopped worrying so much about what the guy would think of me. I suppose in some ways this mirrors Orgasm Asshole Entry by Roosh, actually. If he wasn’t such an asshole in general, that might make me more inclined to cut him some slack.)

Is this making sense? I haven’t explicitly thought about the “what women trade sex for” concept for a long time, but it’s something that’s been on my mind ever since I started having sex. I resist thinking of sex that way because I prefer to think of it as a mutual pleasure thing and I prefer to describe it that way in order to encourage both myself and others to think of it as a mutual pleasure thing. But in practice, in society as it currently stands, although there are many women who have sex purely for pleasure, I think that there is an expectation that women should “gain” something extra from the sexual exchange. I don’t know if you read my piece over at Off Our Chests, but I got into this a little bit there:http://offourchests.com/fear-loathing-and-sm-sluthood-in-san-francisco/

Skip down to the section that starts with “Occasionally, my mother …” That’s the most interesting/theoretical part of the piece, the rest is just storytime.

I think Roosh is probably accurate in his observations. I think women either generally orgasm or they don’t, and the role of their partner is exaggerated. So women who routinely don’t orgasm during sex won’t see it as anything unusual to not orgasm. Women who do routinely orgasm during sex won’t see it as anything unusual to do so. Consequently it’s not surprising that Roosh doesn’t notice much difference in their behaviour.

I think that there are feedback loops that occur with either kind of woman that maintain them in quite distinct categories. Those that rarely orgasm seek emotional gratification or other kinds of recompense that maintain patterns of sexual behaviour and attitudes that prevent orgasm. Those that orgasm regularly not only have the kind of sex mechanistically that typically leads to orgasm for them, but also the frame of mind, a certain level of confidence and openness, I guess.

Moving from one category to another is difficult for many women. I think that women see certain types of masculinity, i.e. bad boys, as being transformative in this respect. See: rape fantasies.

Right, and as for why the “sex as exchange for romance” thing has been coming up more in what I’m writing lately, I think this is probably for two reasons:

1) I am personally working with relationship formations that I’m not used to. I think I probably come across as pretty promiscuous on this blog, but I haven’t been historically, and I’ve sort of been ramping it up lately ….

2) PUA techniques often remind me of this exchange dynamic because it seems to me that some capitalize on it. Yes, many PUA ideas are just charm methods, and many are harmless if done with honorable intent. But there are techniques that involve blatant lies (e.g. the necklace thing, where you pack a couple of cheap necklaces every time you go out, and you drape one around the target’s neck, and you tell her that it’s your favorite necklace and you’ll be back for it so she better keep it for you). And some techniques, especially those blatant lies, are intended to make it seem like you have more romantic investment in the target than you actually do. Which is basically a way of hacking the exchange model.

@machina — I agree with your thoughts, and I agree that Roosh’s observations are generally accurate as far as they go. What makes me angry about them is the total lack of empathy and his complete inattentiveness to the social double binds that contribute to this state of affairs for women. And also the fact that he holds up not caring as a point of pride. As the Big Lebowski puts it, “No, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.”

I think that women see certain types of masculinity, i.e. bad boys, as being transformative in this respect.

As the Big Lebowski puts it, “No, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.”

Ha ha. One of my favorite quotes. And yeah, definitely.

I’m pretty sure people on every side of these issues could afford to be told that from time to time (although Roosh is certainly particularly high on the list). And, unfortunately, assholery generally begets more assholery. So it grows. And then eventually everyone is an asshole.

It’s hard to break the cycle. And (not to be too sappy) I really appreciate the effort that you put into trying to do precisely that, Clarisse.

@machina:

I think Roosh is probably accurate in his observations. I think women either generally orgasm or they don’t, and the role of their partner is exaggerated.

Sure. I’ve had partners that were really easy to get off, and partners that were near impossible. And I put more effort into working with and trying to figure out the latter women. So I doubt it was me doing anything “wrong”. And unlike Roosh, I’m not under the illusion that PIV is the only or “best” way to get a woman off. (Though I don’t fault Roosh for his ignorance, because if you don’t know that you don’t know something, then there’s really nothing you can do about it.)

What’s really weird, though, is that even when I know on an intellectual level that it’s not my fault if I can’t get my partner off, I still end up feeling like it is. I still end up feeling like I’ve let my partner down, and like I’m deficient. And especially if it’s a long-term thing, I can start to feel unfixably deficient because no matter how hard I try to figure it out, I can’t. I rather suspect a lot of guys are like that.

And of course all of this can interact extremely badly with women who have difficulty reaching orgasm, because that’s precisely not the reaction they need. It’s really hard to be supportive when you associate strong feelings of failure and deficiency with trying to help your partner. “Can you help me…” and “Can you try…” start to become triggers, then. It’s the weirdest thing.

I think Roosh is probably accurate in his observations. I think women either generally orgasm or they don’t, and the role of their partner is exaggerated.

Machina, Clarisse–both of you agree with this, per the above, and I don’t. But I’m unable to explain my disagreement in a non-asshole manner. In lieu of that, can either of you go into your reasons for believing this?

Cessen’s seem to be personal experience, and that’s all I’ve got for this too, I’m mostly just wondering if there’s some other source for this that I’m missing.

(This is a problem of communication I’ve run into a lot before, but it’s still interesting, so I figure it’s worth a shot.)

Clarisse,

2) PUA techniques often remind me of this exchange dynamic because it seems to me that some capitalize on it. … Which is basically a way of hacking the exchange model.

You seem to be saying that that’s a bad thing. Could you go into that more?

Machina, Clarisse–both of you agree with this, per the above, and I don’t. But I’m unable to explain my disagreement in a non-asshole manner. In lieu of that, can either of you go into your reasons for believing this?

Cessen’s seem to be personal experience, and that’s all I’ve got for this too, I’m mostly just wondering if there’s some other source for this that I’m missing.

To be clear, I think machina’s statement is an over-simplification. I think the partner does play a role. Maybe more what it is, is that the woman’s role is downplayed?

I mean, flipping it around, I’ve talked to women that have been with men that are extremely difficult to get off (say with oral sex, or a hand job, and even with PIV lasts forever and a day, etc.). And in those cases, there seems to be a lot more acknowledgment that it’s not the woman being incompetent. It’s simply a frustration, and something to try to work on. The guy is just difficult to get off. Not impossible, but really difficult.

And at least in my experience, I don’t see our culture making the same acknowledgment when things are the other way around. The guy is considered a “bad lover”, who is incompetent and worthy of teasing and ridicule.

And I suspect some of this stems from the fact that quite a few guys don’t know female anatomy, and they do have a lot of misinformation. And so it’s just assumed be default that if a guy can’t get his partner off, it’s his fault. Which makes sense in a way. But at the same time, there are a lot of cases where that’s not what’s going on.

Having said that, I can see how substantial pop-culture acknowledgment of women that are just difficult to get off could lead to even worse sex for women if it’s not accompanied by better knowledge of female sexuality. I can only imagine, for example, the guys reading Roosh going off and fucking all these women who aren’t getting off, and the guys just reassure themselves, “Oh, this must just be a woman who doesn’t orgasm.”

2) PUA techniques often remind me of this exchange dynamic because it seems to me that some capitalize on it. … Which is basically a way of hacking the exchange model.

PUAs also attempt to avoid the exchange dynamic by leading a woman to have more intrinsic desire for sex with them. The more she desires sex for itself, the less he needs to exchange something else for it.

This is why PUAs are often against fancy dates, for example. If she desires you, then there shouldn’t be a need to take her out to a fancy restaurant for her to have a good time. If you do put too much more work into arranging the date, then it looks like you think your company alone isn’t exciting enough for her, and you are trying to “sweeten the deal.”

But there are techniques that involve blatant lies (e.g. the necklace thing, where you pack a couple of cheap necklaces every time you go out, and you drape one around the target’s neck, and you tell her that it’s your favorite necklace and you’ll be back for it so she better keep it for you).

I’ve read about stuff like this in The Game, but I don’t think that this particular technique is in fashion anymore.

And some techniques, especially those blatant lies, are intended to make it seem like you have more romantic investment in the target than you actually do.

What are some other examples? I know that there are some patterns for doing this, but patterns in general are out of fashion outside NLP methods.

I do know of various techniques for amplifying emotional connection, such as “venue changing” (going to multiple places in one date makes people feel like they know each other better). I find these techniques less problematic, because they work on the guy, also, which reduces any asymmetry in feelings of connection.

Ultimately, there aren’t going to be many techniques that rely on displaying more romantic investment than you feel, because PUAs are extremely wary about displaying any romantic interest. PUAs are more likely to hide romantic interest that they do have, rather than faking romantic interest that they don’t have (look at the literature on “one-itis”). Since so many young women aren’t looking for something long-term anyway, displaying romantic interest isn’t always a viable tactic in the first place.

Often, PUAs will just go for friends with benefits by default, and leave the woman to make emotional advances, even if they would be interested in something longer term. The reason is that seeming to emotionally needy is considered to be the death knell for sexual attraction. It’s considered better to be too emotionally aloof, than to be too emotionally needy. If you are the guy who must make both physical and emotional advances, then the roles are highly asymmetrical.

In the big picture, I see pickup as more about avoiding exchange dynamics than about taking advantage of the traditional exchange. Of course, rather than exchanging romantic investment for sexual opportunities, PUAs create a new sort exchange of seductive experiences (including ones that subvert the traditional exchange!) for sexual opportunities.

@Motley — Machina, Clarisse–both of you agree with this, per the above, and I don’t. But I’m unable to explain my disagreement in a non-asshole manner. In lieu of that, can either of you go into your reasons for believing this?

haha. How much of an asshole will you sound like? Like, will I be crying and breaking things? If not, I hereby think that you should be an asshole for one comment if that’s what it takes to explain your thoughts. If I freak out then I will go do it on my own time.

Cessen said that I think the partner does play a role. Maybe more what it is, is that the woman’s role is downplayed? And I agree.

For me it’s mostly based on personal experience, and on talking to other women. Sure, some guys are just terrible in bed (total lack of empathy, etc), and some relationships are just bad combinations due to deep-rooted sexual mismatches. But figuring out how to have orgasms is a lot in our heads, too. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve had partners who were way better at getting me off than other partners, and before I figured out how to do it, I had some partners who were much more helpful than other partners. I owe some major insight to some past partners. (Like the one who said, “Is that really how you think of sexual pleasure? As something you endure?”)

I am not absolving men from responsibility here. And more experienced men are definitely better at it. But there’s a lot to be said for figuring out how to do it on your own and communicating that to your partner. And there are physiological differences too …. For example, an assortment of anecdotal data leads me to believe that I just have a harder time having orgasms physically, period, and my weirdness can’t just be reduced to my perversions.

Also, as Cessen said,

I can see how substantial pop-culture acknowledgment of women that are just difficult to get off could lead to even worse sex for women if it’s not accompanied by better knowledge of female sexuality. I can only imagine, for example, the guys reading Roosh going off and fucking all these women who aren’t getting off, and the guys just reassure themselves, “Oh, this must just be a woman who doesn’t orgasm.”

Yeah, this. It’s such a difficult line.

In re: hacking the exchange model,

You seem to be saying that that’s a bad thing. Could you go into that more?

I mean, look … there’s nothing wrong with hacking courtship patterns as long as no one is lying. The problem with some PUA stuff is that it’s designed to lie, explicitly (as with the necklace) or implicitly, about emotional intentions. In a model where women frequently want love or at least affection/emotional investment as part of their sexual exchange, a guy who fakes emotional investment is like a con man. It is really not cool to act like you’re offering more emotional resources than you are, in order to get someone into bed. (Granted, people have a lot of capacity to lie to themselves, and sometimes no matter how many times you say “I’m not emotionally available” or “I’m not looking for anything serious”, your partners just won’t believe you. I’m not saying that the lines are always 100% clear or bright.)

(I’m also certainly not saying I’m perfect about this. I have definitely been in the “Damn, this guy really likes me and is awesome in bed, but if I’m honest about my emotional unavailability that might drive him off” boat. It sucks sometimes, but ultimately you have to be honest. And granted, yes, sometimes emotional attachment develops over time and if you just give it some space rather than talking about it all the time, it will happen in a given relationship. And sometimes we don’t 100% know what we’re thinking. But sometimes we do.)

I think this is the real problem most feminists have with the SC, but articulating it is hard, partly because it requires a bluntness about sexual exchange that many people aren’t comfortable with.

@HR — PUAs also attempt to avoid the exchange dynamic by leading a woman to have more intrinsic desire for sex with them. The more she desires sex for itself, the less he needs to exchange something else for it.

Acknowledged.

I don’t think that this particular technique is in fashion anymore.

How can outsiders tell which techniques are and aren’t in fashion? Serious question, not trying to be snide. I don’t really know how to talk about examples if the territory shifts too quickly for me to tell what’s commonly used and what’s not. The necklace thing was definitely promoted pretty heavily in The Game.

Often, PUAs will just go for friends with benefits by default, and leave the woman to make emotional advances, even if they would be interested in something longer term. The reason is that seeming to emotionally needy is considered to be the death knell for sexual attraction.

Emotional escalation is an art, and it’s hard, and that type of initiation is usually left to the woman, while sexual escalation is usually left to the man. I have more thoughts on this than I can fit into this comment. They’ll probably be explored thoroughly in my eventual PUA article. (Working title: “Confessions of a PUA Chaser”)

Briefly, though, I do think that appearing too emotionally invested is a death knell for either side of the equation. It’s sort of like seeming too sexual too soon, in terms of sexual escalation. But there are ways of seeming more vulnerable, or more open to emotional escalation, that offer more than a person is really willing to give. If used consciously, I don’t think those are really okay. The question then becomes, how consciously are those patterns used, and where are the lines in terms of conscious emotional escalation and unconscious.

My dad and I recently had a conversation about an ex-girlfriend of his who, he angrily feels, led him to think she was more emotionally invested than she actually was, and encouraged emotional investment on his part that she didn’t intend to return. I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, in that it sounds like she was genuinely quite confused, but I think he’s still got a point in terms of how leading other people on is a genuinely unethical thing to do.

I can see how substantial pop-culture acknowledgment of women that are just difficult to get off could lead to even worse sex for women if it’s not accompanied by better knowledge of female sexuality. I can only imagine, for example, the guys reading Roosh going off and fucking all these women who aren’t getting off, and the guys just reassure themselves, “Oh, this must just be a woman who doesn’t orgasm.”

Yeah, this. It’s such a difficult line.

Yeah.

I think my main frustration is that I don’t really see many people trying to walk that line (publicly, anyway). Again, in my experience men are often held more accountable for this than they should be, with too little acknowledgment of the woman’s role (both biologically and behaviorally). And I don’t think that’s okay either, because it sets things up to be really bad for guys (and indirectly for women too, due to the insecurities it produces in men, as I noted in a post above).

I get the impression that for a lot of people there is this fear that incorrectly walking the line will do more damage than just ignoring the line and continuing as we have been. But I think that’s load of BS. I think it’s really important to start trying to walk this line even if we do it wrong at first.

But there’s a lot to be said for figuring out how to do it on your own and communicating that to your partner.

I would say there’s more than just a lot to be said for that. I would go so far as to say that it is downright inappropriate to expect my partner to be able to please me until I know how to please myself and can effectively communicate how to do it. And this goes for both women and men.

That doesn’t mean that it’s inappropriate to expect my partner to help experiment with me. It’s absolutely not. But there has to be zero pressure about actually achieving anything by it other than just having fun with the process.

I would further say that once “fault” comes into the dynamic of a sexual relationship, then it’s probably screwed anyway. Once it stops being a “we’re in this together” process, I don’t see how it can proceed in a healthy manner.

And that’s a further argument in favor of trying to minimize insecurities about pleasing our partners. If I’m implicitly blaming myself, then that’s already part way down that road.

How much of an asshole will you sound like? Like, will I be crying and breaking things?

Haha, no, not the inflammatory interesting kind of asshole, the more banal, smug kind. Because I am maybe sort of smug about it–or, I guess, kind of proud (in that way that you can be proud of things that are easy but that are apparently absurdly difficult for everybody else… I have a lot of these).

I’d been sexually active for a couple years before I heard that not all women are multi-orgasmic, and that some even have difficulty actually getting there. I’ve heard things like that a lot since then, but–and here’s the smug part–nothing in my personal experience supports this rumor; for all I know, it could (still) just be something people say. (Though my sample group isn’t necessarily representative, it’s large enough–though I don’t know exactly how large, really–that I think I can safely assume that it’s me, not them.)
So my knee-jerk response is to doubt that it actually has more to do with the woman than with her partner; what evidence I’ve got seems to indicate that the woman has basically nothing to do with it.
(I’ve certainly had partners who claimed to’ve never had an orgasm before, or to never have had one with a partner before; I didn’t notice any difference in performance between the ones who made claims like that and the ones who didn’t. Which is not to say I think they were lying–I can usually tell, and I don’t think they were–just that it seemed a little dubious).

I’ve occasionally been asked “what’s my secret.” I answer (mostly honestly) that I really don’t know. Just pick a thing you think’ll work, try it, and if it doesn’t, try something else… that’s all I’ve got. I have literally no idea why this is a problem for anybody.
And I’d never given it too much thought. But this:

But figuring out how to have orgasms is a lot in our heads, too.

…gives me some ideas about what’s different between me and everybody else (in this case). Certain talents, and all that. I guess I just never think of the human mind or nervous system as all that complicated, once you’ve poked around in it enough?

I can see how this is totally non-useful, though, so apologies. It’s as true, but probably just as useless, as when the proverbial 23-year-old female model says that “just be yourself” is the key to success in dating.

Side note:

“Is that really how you think of sexual pleasure? As something you endure?”

Okay, that’s totally hot.

…anyway, back on topic:

I mean, look … there’s nothing wrong with hacking courtship patterns as long as no one is lying.

I feel like there’s a disconnect here: I don’t really comprehend this bright shiny line you seem to be perceiving between “lying” and “not lying” in this context–probably because of where I’m coming from. I mean, as has come up before, putting on makeup is lying. Dressing up for a date is lying. Being polite to strangers is lying. We lie all the time–I’m doing it right now, and you probably are too.* I think the intent matters a lot more than whether someone’s actually being honest or not.

*It might be worthwhile to think of honesty as a spectrum rather than a yes/no, if that makes sense.

So back to the PUA thing with the necklace–I haven’t read the book (or if I did, it must’ve been sufficiently long ago that I don’t remember)–I’m a little surprised it’s not something else about it that bothers you more than the lying.** But as to the dishonesty of it–is it really assumed that the girl you’re trying this on will actually be stupid enough to believe that it’s really your favorite necklace, rather than just–correctly–deciding that this is just some goofy bullshit used as a means of flirting?
Most women I’ve met aren’t that stupid. I mean, I’ve said and done fairly similar things, and I don’t think anybody was ever dumb enough to take it more literally than it was intended.

**The gimmick with the necklace seems more like a different kind of test–to see if a given woman will let a stranger put something around her neck without asking first. Looked to me like a pretty clear “Do you have a sense of your own boundaries and the confidence to enforce them” test–basically an attempt at determining a woman’s victim potential.
I mean, hell, if a woman who’s never laid eyes on me before lets me walk up to her and put something around her neck without saying anything, that would be a pretty clear indication that I don’t need to look any further today (but that I’ll probably need to make new plans again for the weekend after next, because that’s someone who’s going to be used up pretty quickly).

…a guy who fakes emotional investment is like a con man. It is really not cool to act like you’re offering more emotional resources than you are, in order to get someone into bed.

So far what I’ve heard about the PUA types is that they seem to universally–or nigh-universally–counsel the exact opposite of what you’re accusing them of (for a variety of reasons).

…and sometimes no matter how many times you say “I’m not emotionally available” or “I’m not looking for anything serious”, your partners just won’t believe you.

Hah! That’s the truth.

I think this is the real problem most feminists have with the SC, but articulating it is hard, partly because it requires a bluntness about sexual exchange that many people aren’t comfortable with.

I suspect a part of it is about the fact that abandoning the exchange model necessitates abandoning the idea that women are entitled to demand additional value in addition to sex. This comes up a lot whenever a feminist group looks at an area where women currently have advantages, and actually achieving equality means surrendering those advantages–and some balk at it. It’s sorta where you find out which “feminists” are sincere, and which are just female chauvinists.
And I think this latter tendency is where a lot of everyone’s knee-jerk condemnation of the PUAs comes from.

Which leads to some weird and interesting consequences, like when Cessen points out:

Having said that, I can see how substantial pop-culture acknowledgment of women that are just difficult to get off could lead to even worse sex for women if it’s not accompanied by better knowledge of female sexuality.

If some are just more difficult to get off, but acknowledging this fact might have some real and negative consequences for some women… then it’s time to make a choice.
Because building a theory that denies reality has negative consequences, too, but they’re much more subtle.
But it’s an easy choice; actual negative consequences for your people on the one hand, and a fairly small disconnect from reality in the minds of your followers on the other. The latter doesn’t seem so bad, but after a couple decades of having to make these choices, the accepted “canon” of literature can get pretty weird, as it starts to contain a lot of small, deliberate inaccuracies.

(See also: Why being accepted as a “conservative” in America right now means having to believe in a lot of demonstrably-false ideas. I deal with a lot of this professionally, and it’s always fascinating to see where and how the little discrepancies were built into their world-views, and and to what end.)

But enough of that from me for one night. Happy new year, everyone. And whatever other generic holiday salutations you prefer.

I’d been sexually active for a couple years before I heard that not all women are multi-orgasmic, and that some even have difficulty actually getting there. I’ve heard things like that a lot since then, but–and here’s the smug part–nothing in my personal experience supports this rumor; for all I know, it could (still) just be something people say. (Though my sample group isn’t necessarily representative, it’s large enough–though I don’t know exactly how large, really–that I think I can safely assume that it’s me, not them.)

Sure, I do think think the guy plays a role. But that doesn’t mean that the difficulty level doesn’t vary.

I mean, you can have some guy totally nail the hardest song in Guitar Hero, and the fact that it’s easy for him doesn’t negate that the song is really hard. And other people shouldn’t feel somehow deficient for not measuring up to his skill.

So I think your talent is precisely that: you have a natural knack for this.

As I mentioned before, my experience* has exposed me to a range of ‘difficulties’. I don’t think I’ve ever been with someone that I couldn’t ever get off, but there are certainly women that I could not consistently or reliably get off, and women that took a lot longer to get there and required much more exacting stimulation.

There also seems to be a differing dependence on mental/emotional state between different women. Some women really need to be in the right head space, and some women don’t (or at least they slip into that head space really easily on their own). And in the cases where a woman needs to be in a specific head-space but can’t easily put herself in it, then the entire onus of creating the proper experience to get her there falls on the guy. And that’s a big onus. The sex turns into a performance on the guy’s part, focused on getting her where she needs to be. And sometimes that performance can conflict with his emotional needs or what he wants out of the experience.

This was the case with me and one of my past partners, where she needed some form of boundary pushing and uncertainty involved to get her into the necessary head-space, but I was really uncomfortable providing that.

And, of course, this also speaks to being aware of sexual compatibility issues. As Clarisse said:

[…]and some relationships are just bad combinations due to deep-rooted sexual mismatches.

*Full disclosure: I don’t have a large sample that I’m drawing from at all. It’s quite small, actually. But it is a varied sample.

Elana Clift did a great job for her honors thesis, after hanging out with PUAs for months, but even she got a few things wrong. (For instance, she claimed that field reports are primarily about building popularity. While popularity is a big motive, FRs really are useful for sharing knowledge, and I don’t think it’s at all obvious that attaining popularity is their primary purpose.)

I don’t really know how to talk about examples if the territory shifts too quickly for me to tell what’s commonly used and what’s not. The necklace thing was definitely promoted pretty heavily in The Game.

The Game isn’t a representative sample of pickup techniques; it’s a sample of Mystery Method + David DeAngelo + Speed Seduction techniques that make for good drama. It was written in 2005, about an even earlier period of pickup. The territory isn’t exactly shifting quickly, but it has certainly shifted since the period that the book was written about, which was actually not pickup of 2005, but pickup that’s even older.

During that time, pickup was very gimmicky and outer-game focused. Even before The Game was published, more inner focused methods were developing (including “direct” and “natural” methods), and gimmicks or canned routines were in decline. However, none of that stuff made it into The Game, except for Juggler.

Discussing examples is really the only way to communicate about what techniques are presently representative of ideas and attitudes in the seduction community. Many techniques that people hear about through The Game and the media come through a filter that accords attention based on controversy, not just on commonness (see the notion of the availability heuristic: controversial ideas are more cognitively available to commentators, who’s selective reporting influences everyone downstream). Various techniques might turn out to be outdated, and shouldn’t serve as the basis for generalizations about the community (though of course, even uncommon techniques are worth discussing and critiquing as long as they aren’t portrayed as common).

I recommend that you also get some friends with pickup experience other than me to get reality checks from, to compensate for my own biases.

I have a longer reply to Clarisse’s observations in mind, but didn’t have the time to put it in writing yet.

Hugh, if the game is not representative of the SC anymore, what would you say is? Is there something like an up-to-date overview? Because, to be honest, most of what I’ve seen in the last couple of years since the book has been published was pretty much the same with different “brand names”. Maybe I’m not following this sufficiently to stay up-to-date, but I get that cliff list newsletter and I occasionally look at it and read the featured item, and my impression really isn’t that things have changed, apart from everything a) being more commercial than it must have been before and b) competition benefitting the more aggressive email-marketers and not necessarily the better information.

“Third, the Chinese social strata are distinct and significant. For the first time this year, words like “Jia man” and “Yi woman” became officially recognized words in the Chinese lexicon. Jia men and women are rich businesspeople and professionals. Yi’s are middle class people with stable jobs. Then come Bing’s, lower class city folk and relatively well off country folk. Then come Ding’s, poor country folk or factory workers – the lowest of the low. As we learned above, Jia men prefer Yi women, Yi men prefer Bing women, and Bing men prefer Ding women.

Life is good for Ding women. If they are attractive enough, they have a good chance of marrying upwards into Bing families in the city. The poor Ding men, especially in the country where the gender divide is most evident, are left in a bind. Their own women are disappearing, and marrying upwards would be a humiliation. Even if a Ding man got over his pride, it would be hard for him to find a Bing woman who would take him over all the available Bing and Yi men. Of those 23 million bachelors, most of them will be found here, among poor men in the countryside.

There is one other group, however, that finds itself left out of this game of social musical chairs: Jia women. Jia men are usually rich enough to afford a stay at home wife, which is preferable, so they take their pick of Yi women. Yi men may need money a little more, but not enough to suffer the humiliation of a wife with a higher income. Thus, the poor Jia woman finds herself unable to find a mate by virtue of her high income.”

The Feminist Nice Guy’s problem being an unwillingness to give himself permission to act on any such signals if received, as well as maybe (I think less likely, though) a relative unperceptiveness to these signals.

It’s possible to give such an emphasis on respecting the female “no” that the hapless well-intentioned guy (especially if this education relies on reinforcing his general sexual shame) becomes almost impervious to any messages of “yes.”

Notice, to go back to the article, that this world of nonverbal real messages means that the realm of the implicit is not a realm of guesswork, at all — or inference.

It probably all works better though when slightly under the radar of the conscious mind…

By the way no matter how I parse my (approximately median, evidently, but in any case probably larger than Kant’s) “number,” how generously or restrictively the criteria for including one different partner or another, I get a figure of about 2/3 of the cases where the woman initiated not me. I wonder if this is a matter of perception though.

@Motley — So my knee-jerk response is to doubt that it actually has more to do with the woman than with her partner; what evidence I’ve got seems to indicate that the woman has basically nothing to do with it.

(I’ve certainly had partners who claimed to’ve never had an orgasm before, or to never have had one with a partner before; I didn’t notice any difference in performance between the ones who made claims like that and the ones who didn’t. Which is not to say I think they were lying–I can usually tell, and I don’t think they were–just that it seemed a little dubious).

Grr, I typed a long response and my computer ate it. Suffice to say that this is very interesting. It may indicate that men’s insecurities play a stronger role in the female orgasm process than we might think. Which would make sense. Certainly in my own experience, I’ve had at least as much difficulty orgasming due to anxiety about men’s insecurities, as I have because of my own personal stuff. And as I mentioned, I owe a lot to certain past partners. Sure, I’ve had some partners who were totally certain they could get me off and were incorrect. But the partners I’ve had who took a methodical approach, and who simply tried things based on their instincts and considerable knowledge about me, without getting all anxious about whether something was wrong with them, were the more useful.

Presumably you do find that some women are more complicated though? Or at least that some women require different approaches? I mean, I certainly find that this is true of men.

Okay, that’s totally hot.

Oh, Motley. If you ever kill your wife, I won’t hide you from the police, but I will sleep with you before they arrive. I would say that was a joke, but I’m not sure it is.

But as to the dishonesty of it–is it really assumed that the girl you’re trying this on will actually be stupid enough to believe that it’s really your favorite necklace, rather than just–correctly–deciding that this is just some goofy bullshit used as a means of flirting?

Hmm. I hadn’t thought of whether it would work on me. I mean, it obviously wouldn’t now. I think I probably would have bought it when I was younger, though, if it came from a guy who seemed to genuinely like me and was delivered as described in The Game.

@Cessen — The sex turns into a performance on the guy’s part, focused on getting her where she needs to be. And sometimes that performance can conflict with his emotional needs or what he wants out of the experience.

Which might be another reason Motley has an easier time with it, since he seems to think he’s pretty much always performing, so maybe it makes less difference to him about whether he can express his “real” self during a sexual encounter.

@HR — I recommend that you also get some friends with pickup experience other than me to get reality checks from, to compensate for my own biases.

Yeah, part of the problem is that the guys who will talk to me are more likely to be feminist-ish, or at the very least capable of interacting with a feminist, which biases the hell out of my sample. Oh well.

I’m not sure how much more I can take of reading PUA fora. Can you recommend any particular keywords that I can search for? Also interested in your response to Sam.

Also, this whole conversation with Motley reminds me that you never answered the questions I asked about your friend who says that trying to please women doesn’t get results. (Is it Roosh?)

@humbition — Interesting stuff. Renews my feeling that I need to study up on body language, because I suck at it.

It’s possible to give such an emphasis on respecting the female “no” that the hapless well-intentioned guy (especially if this education relies on reinforcing his general sexual shame) becomes almost impervious to any messages of “yes.”

I’m still waiting to hear more concrete ideas for how to teach a better approach. I try to talk about body language on the occasions that I give my sexual communication workshop, but I’m seriously bad at that, so I simply can’t emphasize it. And there’s no way in hell I’m going to give a “sometimes when she says no she means yes” message. Ever.

I’m still waiting to hear more concrete ideas for how to teach a better approach. I try to talk about body language on the occasions that I give my sexual communication workshop, but I’m seriously bad at that, so I simply can’t emphasize it. And there’s no way in hell I’m going to give a “sometimes when she says no she means yes” message. Ever.

The “Indicators of Interest” approach from the seduction community has a lot of merit, IMO. Breaking down body language and social interactions in a useful way, and saying “if you get enough of these IOI’s, it is reasonable to escalate”. It could also be useful for women who haven’t absorbed the socially acceptable ways to broadcast their interest.

I think this “IOI” concept is actually one of the more useful things that reading SC material has done for me. Watching hidden video of pickups has also been really helpful. Then you see what it actually looks like (rather than caricatured reenactments) and potentially get to read accompanying observations. The show “The Pickup Artist” also has some pretty nifty hidden video segments, with critiques from Mystery et al.

I think eventually people develop an intuition for it (in fact, I think some people already have an intuition but don’t feel permitted to act on it for fear of it being wrong and subsequently committing minor boundary violations). But especially at first it’s really helpful to have some basics broken down for you so that you don’t make the really huge mistakes.

Renews my feeling that I need to study up on body language, because I suck at it.

A guy I know (who isn’t aware of my condition) forwarded this article around a day or two ago, and now keeps calling me a “ten-percenter.” He didn’t get it when another friend of mine (who is) said “no, a one-percenter.”
Kind of a weird party.

And there’s no way in hell I’m going to give a “sometimes when she says no she means yes” message. Ever.

And there’s that choice to which I was referring above; telling guys that “sometimes no means yes” has a chance of resulting in some extra harassment–but telling them that “no” never means “yes” does too. Because sometimes–maybe often–women do say no when they mean yes, and I know this, because I have eyes and a brain. So if someone’s telling me that “no” always means “no,” I’m going to conclude–correctly–that either they’re much more ignorant than I am (because it’s really not hard to notice this) or that they’re deliberately misinforming me to support their political ideology. In either case, I’m likely to conclude (possibly incorrectly) that the speaker doesn’t have anything worthwhile to say; because if they’re ignorant or lying about something as simple and obvious as that…
And it’s not much better for people who do believe it, because now the world makes less sense to them, because they’ve got beliefs in their heads that are objectively false, and their interactions with the world will be based upon this erroneous fantasy world, rather than being able to interact with the real world as it is.
And the real people they’re actually interacting with only exist in the real world, so this isn’t doing anybody any favors. Except the speaker, perhaps, who maybe feels good about it, and gets to avoid the negative consequences for challenging the (incorrect) accepted ideological principles.

Presumably you do find that some women are more complicated though? Or at least that some women require different approaches? I mean, I certainly find that this is true of men.

Well, I’ve got maybe five approaches, of varying complexity, and if one doesn’t work, something else will (though I don’t often start with the simplest, for a variety of reasons). If all five (or however many; I don’t really have a list) ever fail me, I’ll come up with a new one, or three, or however many.

I’m not so sure I agree with Cessen’s assessment; I think you’re on to something here:

It may indicate that men’s insecurities play a stronger role in the female orgasm process than we might think.

I suspect it’s more that I don’t have the things that keep your average guy from doing the necessary experimentation–and I think most people would be surprised at how steep the learning curve is. I’m not sure I learned anything, procedurally speaking, from the last, I don’t know, thirty or fifty sexual partners, maybe more. Hell, maybe a lot more–thinking about it now, it might’ve been all from the first ten, I’m not sure.

…so maybe it makes less difference to him about whether he can express his “real” self during a sexual encounter.

Well, sort of. I’m pretty much performing the whole time–and every other time–up until the final few phases of the “relationship,” which is kinda the point.

But to jump back to this,

Certainly in my own experience, I’ve had at least as much difficulty orgasming due to anxiety about men’s insecurities, as I have because of my own personal stuff.

I wonder, now, if women tend to have an easier time getting into it if they are (on some level) aware that their partner doesn’t really give a damn about how they feel about it. I’ve always had the mild suspicion that people are subconsciously aware that they can’t hurt my feelings, and that might factor in–maybe they feel more comfortable experimenting or something.
I mean, it’s easier to relax with a vibrator than with a living partner, right? And in some relevant ways I’ve got more in common, emotionally, with the former than the latter, and on some level I think people perceive that.

Though I suppose I should note that while my sample doesn’t seem too narrow, they are all women who have traits leading them to have sex with someone like me… so that might be a significant statistical bias.

Oh, Motley. If you ever kill your wife, I won’t hide you from the police, but I will sleep with you before they arrive. I would say that was a joke, but I’m not sure it is.

Yup. Since you promote men giving pleasure to women, it’s important to discuss the reasons why some men may be wary of doing so. And now I have some answers from my friend.

1) Is this friend a PUA?
2) What exactly does he mean about women treating him as “less masculine”?
3) Is your friend suuuuure that women “responding better” doesn’t correlate to another change in behavior?
4) What exactly does he mean about women “responding better”? If, as I strongly suspect, this guy is a PUA, how do you think his ideas about female response might have been influenced by PUAdom?

Here were his answers:

1) recovering PUA
2) women sensed the supplication I suspect or they “just wanted to get fucked”
3) loss of supplication behavior, more focus on enjoying myself and the girl
4) related to three – when I wasn’t supplicating, they were more strongly attracted, pussy was really wet, I was probably connecting more with them than worrying about giving them an orgasm – which I suspect is more important.

Here is how he describes his initial attitude:

I also think that my “giving attitude” toward sex was probably a supplication and an insecurity – something you often hear from women is that a guy who gives them orgasms is a keeper. It was a limiting belief that I no longer have. I think the thrill of being with a new guy outweighs the orgasm, and then the orgasm or whatever type of sexual satisfaction falls into place after that (or it doesn’t).

He believes that it was probably his attitude that was the problem, and that he was trying to please women from external motivations such winning their approval, rather than from an internal motivation. He also said that he was projecting his male attitudes towards sex (and the importance of orgasm) onto women, and treating the situation like a video game where he needed a high score, instead of focusing on enjoying the experience.

As PUAs observe in the theory of supplication, many women seem to be turned off by giving behavior from men that isn’t internally motivated, and looks too much like people-pleasing. My friend admitted that there probably isn’t an inherent pitfall to trying to please women, but he feels that he was doing it for the wrong reasons, and that women were picking up on that. He also adds that how women perceive male “giving” behavior (including sexually) depends on how they are treated by other guys: if a woman already has many guys orbiting her and kissing her ass all the time, then she is more likely to view other giving men as chumps.

He feels that his old “giving attitude” was abused by some women. With one woman he went out with, he gave her 20 orgasms with his hand, and got 1 handjob in return. I think we all agree that she had no obligation to give him orgasms in return, but it was a massive jerk move for her to accept so much stimulation from him that she didn’t intend to reciprocate. She also started asking him for other favors, such as help around her apartment. He wanted to date her, and ended up feeling horribly used, angry, and bitter.

His current attitude is that the first few times he sleeps with a woman, he doesn’t worry about giving her orgasms, and just gives her enough foreplay to make her wet for sex. He doesn’t put any pressure on her to have orgasms. After they have had sex at least a few times, then he says that she is more comfortable, and it is easier to give her orgasms before sex.

He observes that once he stopped worrying about giving women orgasms the first few times, women seemed more attracted to him, and would be more wet. He believes that this change occurred because he dropped the attitude of supplication, and focused more on connecting with the woman rather than on achievement.

Back to you, Clarisse:

Point being, this makes me want to make your friend take me out for a nice dinner and then grind my heel into his foot if he tries to kiss me.

When you’re done, why don’t you hunt down the women who’ve burned him, like 20-to-1 orgasm girl, and grind your heel into their faces, too? I think your real beef is with them.

Hugh, if the game is not representative of the SC anymore, what would you say is? Is there something like an up-to-date overview?

Nope.

Because, to be honest, most of what I’ve seen in the last couple of years since the book has been published was pretty much the same with different “brand names”. Maybe I’m not following this sufficiently to stay up-to-date, but I get that cliff list newsletter and I occasionally look at it and read the featured item, and my impression really isn’t that things have changed, apart from everything a) being more commercial than it must have been before and b) competition benefitting the more aggressive email-marketers and not necessarily the better information.

When I talk about pickup evolving since what’s written about in The Game, here are some of the things I’m thinking of:

– Direct. This is completely left out of The Game, even though it existed in 2005.

– “Natural game” methods, and the backlash against the canned-routine-oriented game of Mystery Method. See Juggler, Pickup 101, and even RSD.

– More holistic methods, such as the Authentic Man Program (AMP).

Nowadays, there is certainly a lot of regurgitation, but a lot of the stuff being regurgitated didn’t make it into The Game.

“And some techniques, especially those blatant lies, are intended to make it seem like you have more romantic investment in the target than you actually do. Which is basically a way of hacking the exchange model.”

and this –

“A research team made up of Erin Witchurch and Timothy Wilson, two University of Virginia psychologists, and Daniel Gilbert, a psychologist at Harvard (and the author of the very good “Stumbling on Happiness”), conducted an experiment on 47 female undergraduates. … The study found that women were drawn to the men who found them attractive, but they were particularly intrigued by the men whose interest was unknown to them. (I believe this is something Neil Strauss wrote about in “The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists”.)”

Apart from that, I think a lot comes down to how you look at the sex for romance model – particularly how you define romance, as it’s not something people will easily agree on. Is friends with benefits a “romantic” relationhship? I think you could take the specificity dimension of the sex-worker chart you posted a week or so ago, and find that the continuum of relationship structures continues on the right hand side – as the payment mechanism becomes less specific (and monetary), the direction becomes less clear and the transactional details become long term, multi-dimensional and undefinded ex-ante. In the case of an ideal-type romantic relationship, the exchange is no longer measurable, because of the multitude of dimensions involved.

As Foster-Wallace noted in the interview #28, the only way to help women over their double binds is to allow them to feel a passion that is overwhelming in the sense that they don’t feel they can resist. This may be reminiscent of what you allude to, but, again, I don’t think “passion” is so clearly defined. And moreover, I agree with Motley that women will probably not believe they have found the love of their lives when someone hands them a “favorite” necklace. I mean, sure, in 1320, or 1863, women gave out handkerchiefs as signs of romantic involvement, but, I mean, really, interpreting something like that (in itself – the performance obviously matters) as more than a romantic game between people who are interested in each other is something I find hard to believe.

And if we do believe that women and men are pleasure compatible – in that we are both capable of engaging in and looking for a varierty of relationship constellations on in a multidimensional space, then hacking the current exchange structure seems to be something positive, certainly from a meta-perspective, don’t you think?

And yeah, the Perper study on body language – definitely need to read the original. I think I read somewhere that he wrote that only one in about 30 men was able to read female cues correctly without being trained.

Which brings us back to my interpretation of Foucault and the SC, which I’ll write about tomorrow. And I have another “creep” story.

Hugh,

“Nowadays, there is certainly a lot of regurgitation, but a lot of the stuff being regurgitated didn’t make it into The Game.”

ok. Maybe if you find the time to list some of your favorite resources with respect to those things, there will, at some point, be an up-to-date overview ;)

The only thing I’ve recently looked at (for a female friend!) is Zan Perrion, who now occasionally offers free coaching for women. Speaking of which, he was in “the game”, and he’s pretty “direct”, isn’t he?

2) What exactly does he mean about women treating him as “less masculine”?

3) Is your friend suuuuure that women “responding better” doesn’t correlate to another change in behavior?

4) What exactly does he mean about women “responding better”? If, as I strongly suspect, this guy is a PUA, how do you think his ideas about female response might have been influenced by PUAdom?

Keep in mind the feminist mantra: women are not a monolith. ;-) It works both ways. It’s the corollary to guys like me being unaware of the asshole guys that so many women run into. I think feminists often have a blindness to the asshole (or just not-fitting-with-their-model-of-the-world) women out in the world, of which there are many.

Look, as a woman, I can tell you right now that plenty of guys “respond better” if I act like a goddamn bitch in certain ways.

And of course men aren’t a monolith either. ;-)

Actually, I just helped a female friend of mine put together a fake profile where she presents herself as extremely bitter with lots of unchecked baggage.

Within an hour she had 13 responses, about 6 of which were actually high quality (i.e. not generic messages, from seemingly sane and respectable guys, and clearly from guys that actually read the profile and were subsequently interested).

Neither of us expected that at all. And it was way, way better than she ever did on her “real” profile.

I noted to her that had I stumbled across that profile, I would never have messaged her. It baffles me than any “non weirdo” guys would. So, very much a case of not-fitting-with-my-view-of-the-world.

Yeah, part of the problem is that the guys who will talk to me are more likely to be feminist-ish, or at the very least capable of interacting with a feminist, which biases the hell out of my sample. Oh well.

Yup.

I’m not sure how much more I can take of reading PUA fora. Can you recommend any particular keywords that I can search for?

Keywords? Not really. But I can recommend another person you should read: David Shade (don’t know if he identifies as a PUA, but he is basically the top sex guru in the community).

Here is his perspective on LMR (from The Secrets of Female Sexuality):

Too many men are in a big hurry to get to the sex. That is a huge
mistake.

Do not push against last minute resistance. You will be like all the other guys who objectify women and do not respect her as a real person. And it will reek of desperation.

Instead, defer your own gratification for the big goal. The big goal is to bring out that ruthlessly expressive sexual creature in her. It’s going to take a little time before she becomes your very naughty horny little cum slut fuck bitch.

In fact, move things along just slightly slower than she’d like it. Make her wait. It builds that sexual tension, and it makes her think. When she is away from you, she is going to think about it a lot. Because it is that time away from you that she becomes close to you. That is early in the relationship. Later in the relationship, there will be times when you will initiate sex when she least expects it.

The only reason I’d delay orgasm is to make mine better, and I pretended I don’t hear her the first time she told me to drill slower or not to go so deep. I did whatever I wanted because I came to value my orgasm as sacred, and her pleasure as second to mine.

I think this has consent problems.

The big difference between Roosh’s perspective, and my friend’s, is that my friend talks about giving women orgasms prior to sex once they’ve been going out for a bit, whereas, Roosh never mentions attempting to give women orgasms, ever.

He does seem to care somewhat about how the women feel:

For guys all that matters is the end, but for girls it’s the process. As long as she gets into it and can say, “I’m getting fucked good and this feels great,” then you’ve done your job.

Yet this caring doesn’t seem to extend to giving them orgasms. But why not? I can understand why my friend fears weird female responses to orgasm attempts in the first few dates (I feel the same way), but once you’ve slept with her a few times and established some communication, then what’s the problem?

My own reasons for being skeptical of attempting to give women orgasms prior to sex during the first few times is a bit different from either Roosh or my friend. While I grant the potential reasonableness of my friends worries about looking too “giving,” or putting pressure on the woman to orgasm which she might not want, my main reason is communication issues.

I’m probably going to need some sort of communication to give her an orgasm. But not all women are open to sexual communication with men they don’t know well, or they aren’t very good at it. Attempting to communicate with a woman you don’t know very well about how to please her sexually is a minefield prior to sex the first time.

Of course, if she shows you that she is capable of sexual communication, then that’s different… go tiger! But if you haven’t confirmed this, then it’s probably most practical to keep sexual communication to the minimum necessary for consent.

What’s a worse outcome during the first few dates:

1. The woman wants an orgasm (and will respond positively to you for giving her one), but you don’t give her one.

2. The woman (a) doesn’t want you to try to give her an orgasm, or (b) judges you negatively for your attempt, or (c) doesn’t want the necessary sexual communication, or (d) finds it awkward, unattractive, or hesitant that you attempt sexual communication, but you do attempt to give her an orgasm.

My intuition is that outcome #2 is much worse, and may also be more common. For some women, outcome #1 may be just as bed as #2 is for other women… but those women are probably rarer. (Part of the reason I think that is because in every single case where I’ve asked a woman what I can do to please her in bed, none of them have taken me up on that offer, and some of them looked at me like I’m an alien.)

If you do give a woman an orgasm who wants one on date 1-3, that’s going to be great! But unless you know that having an orgasm is important to her, and that you won’t judge you negatively for attempting to give her one, you are taking a big risk even trying. Sometimes risks are appropriate to take in pickup (e.g. fashion, teasing, approaching), but is this one of those times? Probably not. Why risk blowing things completely by trying to pleasure her (other than some basic foreplay) on dates 1-3, when you can just wait until date 4 (or whenever you’ve established some communication and sexual comfort with her) and pleasure her with less risk?

Why destroy perhaps 10-50% of my prospects trying to give the rest extra pleasure early in dating? Maybe someday, I’ll only date women who are capable of good sexual communication early on, and I’ll be comfortable screening out everyone else. But I’m not quite there yet, and I’m not ready to burn bridges with (perhaps) 50%+ of heterosexual women.

As usual, the presence of large group of women with weird preferences/behaviors screws things up for everyone else by punitively incentivizing men into behavior that’s against the preferences of other women. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that many seemingly male-female sexual conflicts are actually female-female conflicts, where men are merely actors.

Have I linked to that before in the previous Megathread? I’m not sure. Definitely something worth thinking about in terms of manliness.

According to a report from the National Center to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies, 43 percent of men under 30 claim they would be “very pleased” or “a little pleased” by a surprise pregnancy. And this is only among men who reported that it was “important to avoid pregnancy right now.” Just like this guy! Only 20 percent of women who felt avoiding pregnancy was important would feel the same way. And narrow the sample down to men between the ages of 25 and 30, and the number of “pleased” men jumps above 50 percent. … Sometimes, men just get psyched by pregnancies that come along without any serious planning, commitment, or decision-making on their part. Women, on the other hand, remain largely displeased by this development.

And, because fastseduction draws me like a moth to a flame, I found a post (by Mariken) that I think says some interesting stuff that is relevant to my emotional escalation theories. Also relevant to the discussion with Sam about “what is the female version of a guy who can’t get laid”:

After giving it some thought, I would like to correct my previous statement that a woman being used for sex» is comparable to a man being used for money, and add that it can be just as comparable to a guy not being able to get LAID.

… I’m even now starting to believe that it’s impossible for men who can’t get get laid and women who can’t get loved by men to be healthy, as their feelings towards the opposite sex» will be too negative, and they can’t view these things in any balanced way.

While being used for money is more comparable to the mechanisms of it, in the sense that both are being used for something impersonal and not really loved/valued for themselves. Like in a “rocks for gold” situation, where you would really prefer to have as little as possible to do with someone aside from the sex»/money they can provide you with, which is something that can be very hurtful for both men and women (obviously not talking about the situations where both parts are HAPPY with the arrangement and it’s wanted by both which is something different). Once met a man who tried to kill himself after his wife told him she wanted to leave him and only married him for the money, while he saw her as the love of his life, and women can also go through something similar when getting emotionally involved with a man through a sexual relationship.

Some dude responded to the OP by complaining about women who “have this notion that once they sleep with a guy, they are owed a relationship”. Mariken responded that:

Yes, but there are also men who feel that if they take you out for a night you owe them a a lay, or if you spend the night with them/making out with them, they’re owed a lay. A woman never owes you a lay and a man never owes you a relationship. It’s always upto you to choose whether you want to escalate the interaction further and nothing that anyone has the right to ask. That should just be seen as a matter of course and not even up for debate.

@Xakudo — It could also be useful for women who haven’t absorbed the socially acceptable ways to broadcast their interest.

Whoa, I can’t believe I never thought of this.

:goes back to study more IOIs:

@Motley — And there’s that choice to which I was referring above; telling guys that “sometimes no means yes” has a chance of resulting in some extra harassment–but telling them that “no” never means “yes” does too.

Okay, you’re making a good point, and it’s one I’ve heard before. But I really believe that the whole “women say no when they mean yes” is a HUGE problem, and it is not good for people to take the idea to heart. I will further add that in my past, I have had a number of experiences in which men specifically respected my boundaries when I said no, and I was scared that they would push them, and I was relieved that they didn’t push me … and (although I am frankly still somewhat resentful against society that my younger self spent so much time being thankful to men for not pushing me after I put up boundaries) I very sincerely believe that the fact that many men have respected my boundaries in the past is a major factor enabling me to be a good, non-damaged, non-resentful, non-fucked-up sexual communicator today.

While it may have been possible for some men to push me into a “yes” when I said no, and while it may even have been true that when I was much younger I sometimes said “no” when I was really open to further escalation, I think it was really important that my boundaries were generally left alone, and — furthermore — that the very fact that I gained confidence that my boundaries would be respected, and felt sure that men wouldn’t escalate if they got a “no”, required me to get good at articulating “yes” and communicating clearly when I wanted something from my partner.

(As a non-ideal but illustrative example: When I’m doing heavy BDSM scenes with people I don’t know well, I have had to train myself to say things like “Don’t stop!” Saying “Don’t stop!” does not come naturally to me — I prefer to struggle and say no and stuff, actually. But I learned quickly that with new/temporary partners, even if we set a safeword, I couldn’t always rely on them to be confident they could reasonably continue if I was screaming bloody murder. So I made myself learn to ask for it.)

So, in short: how do you recommend that I act to preserve these benefits while speaking with relative truth?

Well, I’ve got maybe five approaches, of varying complexity, and if one doesn’t work, something else will (though I don’t often start with the simplest, for a variety of reasons.

Not to derail or anything, but I’m dying to hear more about this.

I mean, it’s easier to relax with a vibrator than with a living partner, right?

Heh. Actually, I couldn’t relax with a vibrator until one of my boyfriends tied me down and forced me to. After that — once I had a framework for imagining “forced vibrator” — I was able to relax with a vibrator just fine, but I’m not sure if it’s as much as with a living partner. People are different.

they are all women who have traits leading them to have sex with someone like me… so that might be a significant statistical bias.

Yes. I strongly suspect that it is.

Hey, flattery’ll get you I don’t know where. Somewhere?

Knowing you … hopefully not dead. If I’m found dead in an alley then this thread will end! No one wants that, right?

@Sam — And moreover, I agree with Motley that women will probably not believe they have found the love of their lives when someone hands them a “favorite” necklace.

Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that women probably will believe that this guy at least likes them a lot, like, them, as people, who he wants to connect with romantically and not just sexually.

You say that this:

The study found that women were drawn to the men who found them attractive, but they were particularly intrigued by the men whose interest was unknown to them.

… doesn’t go well with my argument. But I’m not saying that women don’t find mysterious/unknown interest type guys intriguing. I certainly do. Note that the study did find that women find men who are drawn to us attractive, also. Maybe not “as attractive” as men who are mysterious (whatever “as attractive” might mean) but still attractive.

Which would imply that methods that demonstrate some emotional attachment actually are useful for men. In fact, based entirely on my own and anecdotal experience, I would guess that the most devastating combination includes both bursts of warmth/apparent emotional interest, and confusing mixed signals/bursts of chill. And I would say that guys who have hurt me the most have often been guys who were mysterious as to their overall emotional state, but expressed enough emotional signals to keep me interested/invested.

This can’t be unique to my gender.

hacking the current exchange structure seems to be something positive, certainly from a meta-perspective, don’t you think?

Yes, of course, we’ve both acknowledged that, but hacking is only okay if you’re not taking advantage of someone.

@Cessen — Actually, I just helped a female friend of mine put together a fake profile where she presents herself asextremely bitter with lots of unchecked baggage.

Within an hour she had 13 responses, about 6 of which were actually high quality (i.e. not generic messages, from seemingly sane and respectable guys, and clearly from guys that actually read the profile and were subsequently interested).

I’m not surprised. I do, however, want to know what kind of stuff was in this profile. If you feel comfortable posting snippets I’d love to see them.

@HR — OMG. I thought I wanted to marry Neil Strauss but actually I want to marry David Shade and keep Strauss on the side. (Though not if it means I have to get plastic surgery in order to meet their HB standards.) Any anti-LMR PUA gains +many points in my book, frankly. And his reasons are so spot on.

Though it’s a bit sad that he reduces self-esteem to parental relationships. So girls with bad daddy relationships can never have reasonable sexual relationships? I’d prefer not to believe this, although I have no particular reason to question it. I wonder how he would recommend raising the self-esteem of a girl who has a bad relationship with her dad?

I agree with you that the 20-orgasm-girl was not acting in a reasonable way, of course.

I’ve been thinking a lot about my own attitudes towards supplication. If he raises the emotional stakes too fast then that will make me back off and lose interest in a guy, and this definitely happens. But …. While it is true that I’m most attracted to guys who give mixed signals and are mysterious and stuff, I also seem to semi-instinctively recognize the difficulties with guys who won’t express a certain level of vulnerability to me. I think I have evolved tests for this, though I have a hard time pinning down what they are.

A guy who is mysterious and can offer something I want probably will get some sexual involvement from me, but he won’t get even a semi-serious relationship unless he drops some of the mystery and shows that he actually cares about me. Not all guys will want a relationship that is at all real, of course, which is fine. But if a guy wants me to treat him with any degree of seriousness (prioritize him, for example), then he’s got to express some attachment and vulnerability. I’m not saying this because I set these rules consciously, btw, I’m saying it because it’s what I’ve observed from my behavior. Sometimes a mysterious guy is attractive or unique enough that I get serious about him without getting those kinds of signals first (e.g. Richard from my coming-out story), but in those cases I seem to be pretty good at setting boundaries without always even specifically deciding that I’m going to set boundaries (e.g., note the bit in my coming-out story in which I start avoiding Richard without even intending to do so).

I’m not really sure what my point is here. I think I’m trying to explore more of the argument I made to Sam, above, and it all seems relevant to the orgasm thing …. I guess I’ll leave this and come back to it later.

I agree with you that the 20-orgasm-girl was not acting in a reasonable way, of course.

If a guy did this, would you call him an asshole? Just curious if there’s some asymmetric benefit-of-the-doubt going on here. (e.g. Guy = asshole, Gal = not acting reasonable.)

That quote from fastseduction is interesting. But similar to Nice Guy(tm), I think the “having sex means he owes me a relationship” is probably a misrepresentation and of the thought process of most such women. I mean, it would be easy to go off about female entitlement and such, but I’m rather suspecting that there is a lot of the frustration dynamic I’ve mentioned before going on there. It would be interesting to talk to a woman who has exhibited that behavior to figure out better where she’s coming from.

And THEN. The fun part is that, after all that, after all that effort and humiliation, it doesn’t work? After all that? That’s why Beyonce’s indignation and anger in this video is perfect. She’s throwing a tantrum, almost, throwing things around and flouncing on the floor, as if to say, WHAT THE FUCK?? YOU DON’T WANT THIS? I did everything I was supposed to do, I cleaned and cooked and pranced and paraded around in bustiers and wore extremely sexy makeup! And still! Nothing? I played by the rules and the rules were A BIG LIE.

Which is basically what it’s like to be a modern woman. We perform femininity, and not only does it not succeeding in bringing about the desired result, I think it’s actually counter-productive to our real goals. Particularly when we’re talking about relationships—lots of people really do want love, and close and serious romantic connections, and femininity is supposed to help us be lovable and desirable. And sure, it might help in attracting a man, but the culture of performative femininity actually makes it less likely that men will regard us as complete human beings, thus making it almost impossible for us to have real emotional intimacy with them, the kind that comes from being able to regard each other as equals.

What’s more, the body alienation that performative femininity causes in us will make us less able to engage in those kinds of egalitarian relationships as well, because we can’t full engage our own desires. Our psyches have been warped to focus on pleasing rather than establishing our own pleasure. This isn’t just about sex. This is about constantly being a compliant caretaker, or doing the emotional work to keep a relationship working smoothly, of anticipating desires.

I feel like this is a much, much closer analog to (most) Nice Guy(tm), and is probably closer to what’s going on in (most of) the supposed “you owe me a relationship” women.

Okay, you’re making a good point, and it’s one I’ve heard before. But I really believe that the whole “women say no when they mean yes” is a HUGE problem, and it is not good for people to take the idea to heart.

I probably should be more clear; it’s not that “no” means “yes,” it’s that “yes” and “no” both usually seem to mean “maybe.” (Paradoxically, I think “Maybe” usually means “I’ve already decided ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but I’m not comfortable talking about it right now.” Though technically I suppose that’s still a “maybe.”)

But anyway, that’s beside the point. Because–barring some extraordinarily out-of-character behavior on your part–there is approximately zero chance that anything you do will actually cause anyone to take “women say no when they mean yes” to heart.

For example:

I will further add that in my past, I have had a number of experiences in which men specifically respected my boundaries when I said no…

Of those, what percentage do you suppose were at risk of deciding that your boundaries didn’t matter? What percentage do you suppose it would have been worthwhile to constantly “remind” that no means no?
I’m going to guess it’s somewhere around zero percent. Because everyone listening to you (myself possibly excepted) already had “no means no” drummed into them from a very young age, constantly, to such an excessive extent that it seems like it constitutes child abuse; they’re having the opposite problem (which is exactly what you’d expect to happen to people whose only information about sex is that their sexuality is monstrous and predatory and must be restrained).

People who need to be reminded that “no” means “no” are the people who’ve already decided, long ago, to ignore you. Everyone else (everyone who might be listening to you) already accepts that–and has quite possibly suffered harm from having been told it too much. Basically, I don’t think there’s any danger whatsoever of you accidentally convincing people that consent doesn’t matter. (It’s the same reason, I suspect, that PUA types don’t worry too much about telling guys to convey emotional attachment and vulnerability–because their audience is at risk for “one-itis,” not its opposite.)

So, in short: how do you recommend that I act to preserve these benefits while speaking with relative truth?

I don’t know how to persuade people I can’t see; I’m not a good propagandist. (Which, oddly, I’m having to constantly explain to people in real life, lately–that my talents only really work on people I can evaluate in person.)

But I think it might be useful to keep in mind that when someone says “yes” or “no,” they’re making a prediction about what their own feelings will be in the future–and that people aren’t good at that. I’m not even much good at that, and the bulk of humanity makes me look like a paragon of self-awareness by comparison. I mean, I see the dilemma–you don’t want to teach people to ignore explicit signals, but it’s also detrimental to teach people that unreliable signals are reliable. But I don’t think that any of the people who are willing to listen to you are in danger of ignoring explicit negative signals. So I don’t really have a silver-bullet solution.
Other than body language, maybe. (that’s how I do it, but my agenda isn’t the same as the one you’re addressing).

On the frat hazing article:
In what the author calls a “fantastic analysis,” Kimmel writes

This chant assumes that anal sex is not pleasurable for women…

Yeah, that’s an example of that choice we’re talking about.
I mean, given that it’s fairly obvious that what the chant was actually assuming was that chanting those particular words would offend people (rather than that it was a sincere and profound statement of beliefs) we’re left with trying to determine whether Kimmel and/or “lisa” are either profoundly ignorant(in which case it’s safe to assume that their “analysis” is worthless) or that they’re deliberately misinforming their audience in an attempt to prop up their philosophy–in which case their analysis is equally worthless for the purpose for which it’s intended, though it’s informative about something else. In this case, (given that if someone tries to construct false evidence to support their philosophy, it’s often a safe bet that they’ve come to the conclusion that their philosophy can’t stand on its own merits) it becomes somewhat tempting to agree with Kimmel’s unstated conclusion (except for a third possibility, which I think is most likely).

In the “Perfect World According To Motley,” I suspect people would be taught that if you find yourself having to falsify evidence to support your conclusion, it means you need to rethink the conclusion (or do some actual research to find real evidence–and if you can’t find any, then it’s rethinking-time again).

Well, I’ve got maybe five approaches, of varying complexity, and if one doesn’t work, something else will (though I don’t often start with the simplest, for a variety of reasons.

Not to derail or anything, but I’m dying to hear more about this.

Which part? (Though yeah, it seems like that might be a topic for some other thread… though I find myself, uncharacteristically, slightly reluctant to get into it, for a couple of different reasons.)

Actually, I couldn’t relax with a vibrator until one of my boyfriends tied me down and forced me to. After that — once I had a framework for imagining “forced vibrator” — I was able to relax with a vibrator just fine,

Oh come on. Now you’re doing this on purpose! Kind of a shame we never met before I got into long-term mostly-monogamy ;)

Knowing you … hopefully not dead

Not unless you asked reeeaaaaaally nicely :p

(Though it’s a bit funny to think about how I deleted the ellipsis before the “I don’t know where” because, while it was supposed to make it sound “confused,” the end result kept looking like it was a little more in the “creepy” territory… which I guess is where that ended up anyway. Ah well.)

Re: this comment to Sam:

But …. While it is true that I’m most attracted to guys who give mixed signals and are mysterious and stuff, I also seem to semi-instinctively recognize the difficulties with guys who won’t express a certain level of vulnerability to me. I think I have evolved tests for this, though I have a hard time pinning down what they are.

I’ll just chime in by saying that this isn’t at all unique–I think that set of “tests” is pretty common–and that they’re probably administered unconsciously in everyone outside of the autistic spectrum (or mine). I think it’s definitely something that grows with time, though–younger/less experienced women don’t seem to have these tests to the same degree (or, more precisely, don’t seem to pay enough attention to negative results).

@Sam — And moreover, I agree with Motley that women will probably not believe they have found the love of their lives when someone hands them a “favorite” necklace.

Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that women probably will believe that this guy at least likes them a lot, like, them, as people, who he wants to connect with romantically and not just sexually.

I can’t read that without chuckling. For it to happen that way, (and I believe that it does) there’d have to be a certain, ah, predisposition to believing that, doesn’t there? (To put it in the most polite terms possible.)

And while I’m not sure I’ve got a lot to add re: this

Which would imply that methods that demonstrate some emotional attachment actually are useful for men. In fact, based entirely on my own and anecdotal experience, I would guess that the most devastating combination includes both bursts of warmth/apparent emotional interest, and confusing mixed signals/bursts of chill. And I would say that guys who have hurt me the most have often been guys who were mysterious as to their overall emotional state, but expressed enough emotional signals to keep me interested/invested.

This can’t be unique to my gender.

For what it’s worth, my experience entirely matches yours, as do my conclusions. And this is something into which I’ve put a lot of attention, albeit not from the same perspective.

@Cessen — I feel like this is a much, much closer analog to (most) Nice Guy(tm), and is probably closer to what’s going on in (most of) the supposed “you owe me a relationship” women.

YES. YES IT TOTALLY IS. Holy shit.

@HR — That’s a good critique of the enthusiastic consent model. It also gets sort of weird with certain types of extreme BDSM scenes — for example, I have a couple of friends where the wife asked the husband to arrange an extreme rape scene, and he agreed. He then gave her 10 months to forget about it, and he arranged for some friends to break into their house and apparently beat the crap out of her and then have sex with her. She believed she was being raped in a nightmarish scenario for the first 10 minutes (at which point she recognized one of the dudes in question despite his ski mask, and figured out the whole thing). She later said that it was one of the best scenes she had ever done, period, but that she didn’t enjoy it at the time; that it only became hot as she thought about it later. Where does enthusiastic consent fit in there? It’s hard to say.

I love the model too much to fully abandon it, though. I think it’s too useful. I’d rather adapt it somehow to fit better with issues like sex work.

@Motley — Interesting thoughts.

given that it’s fairly obvious that what the chant was actually assuming was that chanting those particular words would offend people

Really? You don’t think there are specific elements of attempting to assert masculine dominance and intimidate women? I’m not trying to be snide, it’s an honest question. To me, I think that the major purpose of the chant was to be specifically offensive, yes, but a huge part of it also seems like it’s to communicate to the women who hear it/hear about it that “you don’t get to set boundaries with us”.

Which part? (Though yeah, it seems like that might be a topic for some other thread… though I find myself, uncharacteristically, slightly reluctant to get into it, for a couple of different reasons.)

Basically I want an exact rundown of the 5 approaches and how they work. If you are uncomfortable getting into it, I will be sad but I will understand. I don’t get many opportunities to interrogate a self-IDed sociopath on how he conducts his sexual escalation :P

Oh come on. Now you’re doing this on purpose!

I didn’t mean to, or at least that wasn’t the only reason! I don’t like to see assumptions about sexuality. I also think that my experience (of being unable to relax very effectively with sex toys before I was able to devise a fantasy framework involving a partner) is not uncommon. If that makes sense.

This wasn’t at me, but: I think the difficult fact is that the personal is not political. Which, I guess, is my answer to the question you asked earlier: Yes doesn’t necessarily mean yes, or no, or anything else, because humans are not robots, and no two of them mean exactly the same thing with the same words.* Basically, when trying to figure out whether “yes” means “yes,” or what anything else your partner or prospective partner means: Watch them very carefully, and listen to them very carefully, and try not to think about what you’ve seen in the movies, or what some other person meant when they said the same thing, or what political activists demanded that you take certain words to mean, or what your friends told you it meant that time you all got really drunk.**

Basically that your best (your only, really) source of information on your partner is your partner. If I have universally-applicable advice, it’s that there is no universally-applicable advice, and that anyone who claims to have Figured It All Out is either stupid or lying (likely both).***

*If this sounds a bit odd coming from me, well, kind of is.

**I am here excluding certain mathematicians, because, when dealing with purely abstract (and therefore very simple) concepts, it is possible to be that precise. But no human is an abstract concept, and all of them are unfathomably complex.

***And man, I can’t even describe how much I used to feel insulted when people lied to me. Got over that, when I figured out that most people actually can’t see it when it happens–and that therefore the assumption they’re making is a bit more like a compliment of sorts (because it’s an indicator of success).

Really? You don’t think there are specific elements of attempting to assert masculine dominance and intimidate women?

Heh. Nope. While we’re at it, watched pots do boil, and if a frog’s in it he will know enough to jump out; the Great Wall of China is not visible from space, men do not think about sex every six seconds, vaccines do not cause autism, etc. :p

To me, I think that the major purpose of the chant was to be specifically offensive, yes, but a huge part of it also seems like it’s to communicate to the women who hear it/hear about it that “you don’t get to set boundaries with us”.

Some facts:
1.Men are human beings. No, really.
2.Projecting fantasies onto reality has a negative effect on one’s ability to perceive reality, not a positive one. This could be restated as saying that any belief that requires dehumanizing your opponents is probably false.
3. And this is the most important one–the kids doing the chanting were being hazed.

Any of these three facts is incompatible with Kimmel’s “analysis”–and there is no excuse for ignoring number three. Which kinda illustrates the choice we’re talking about–if your predecessors in your philosophical tradition had chosen to address reality rather than to pass their fantasies off as fact, the fairly simple truth wouldn’t be so hard to perceive. (But then they’d either have had to rethink their beliefs, or to do actual research to find actual supporting evidence).

I mean, when a bunch of hazing victims get, say, set on fire, do you think they’re signifying that they love getting set on fire, that everyone should be set on fire, and that they’re part of a grand conspiracy of pyromaniacs, trying to intimidate people who don’t like being set on fire?
Or do you think that they are, in fact, just getting hazed?

If not, why not? I’m not just being snarky. Why is it that in this case you (and Kimmel, etc.) don’t have any trouble accepting what is a fairly obviously implausible interpretation?

Basically I want an exact rundown of the 5 approaches and how they work. If you are uncomfortable getting into it, I will be sad but I will understand. I don’t get many opportunities to interrogate a self-IDed sociopath on how he conducts his sexual escalation :P

Thinking about it. I’m not even sure it isn’t mostly stuff you already know/can figure out (I think of it as “Basic Anatomy 101,” flavored with the above principle of paying a lot of attention to your partner). (Though not letting your partner notice how much attention you’re paying, because that probably ruins it, in most cases.)
Right now I’m trying to figure out a way to put it into words–it’s a little bit like trying to come up with a way for why I pour syrup on French toast in the way that I do. (Which I suppose isn’t a useful analogy to anybody else, because I imagine most people don’t put much thought into that, either.)
But if I can come up with a way to put it all into words, I might type it up and pass it on.

I also think that my experience (of being unable to relax very effectively with sex toys before I was able to devise a fantasy framework involving a partner) is not uncommon. If that makes sense.

It does, and I think that’s what I was trying to get at–depending on whether or not you’d agree with the statement that people relax more with “sex toy+fantasy framework involving a partner” than with “real person whose real responses keep getting in the way of the fantasy” when that sex-toy is an extremely convincing one (to the extent that they usually can’t actually tell that that’s what’s going on).
Thinking about it, though, I might even go so far as to say that that’s what people in general are doing when they have sex actual people, too. But now we’re getting deeper into territory where selection bias and cynicism come into play, as well as useless questions like “Do you ever really know someone.”

In response to the response to your “creep” article. I find that people who say things like “narcissistic wallowing in their lack of self-confidence” or (at figleaf’s), “lazy people who need to learn social skills like everyone else” — this kind of “tough love” talk is usually not radical at all, but highly individualistic and, if I may, social darwinist. It is the product of a society which believes at some level in the “just world,” that people with certain kinds of troubles have them because they deserve them, end of story. I have found that whenever I have taken advice from such people it has been a disaster for me. I am hypersensitive to any expression of contempt, and though I do not see these expressions as meant for me in particular, I do not like to see them aimed at anyone at all. As far as I am concerned they are a little whiff of Ayn Rand no matter how radical the person articulating them.

In my life compassion beginning with self-compassion has been the only road to progress. As I said, whenever I have tried to understand or accept othering statements from would-be helpers, particularly when these are inflected with contempt, it has been a disaster. This is not the road to empathy. Empathy begins with self-acceptance.

One of the things I have tried to learn to do these last years — well, actually beginning with my anthropological training — is listening. Understanding what people’s worlds are like from their own perspective. Often what we learn from listening is very different from our preconceptions. I would like to thank you, Clarisse, from the bottom of my heart, for being an exemplar of listening in this way. But it makes you by far a better advocate for the kinds of things you do advocate. And you do not compromise your values.

I don’t blame you for your compassion fatigue. But when you are not fatigued — do something good for yourself, rest up, whatever you need — your compassion does good.

“1. Accept male desire, and accept men’s word when they talk about it. This is the trickiest point to deal with, because it is extremely broad and directly implicates the pathologization thesis.

A lot depends here on our diagnosis of why men allegedly do not have their desires accepted and don’t have their word accepted when they talk. I can think of at least three possibilities:

1) The men in question have legitimately shameful desires, and feel ethically inhibited from talking about them. Here, I think the need for an accepting space occurs only in a therapeutic context. A guy may need to be able to talk to a therapist about his desire to have sex with children without fear of judgment, as part of a process of working through and fixing those desires.”

I think it’s telling that the first thing that comes to his mind when addressing this point is pedophilia.

“3) Finally, men may feel inhibited about talking about their desires at all because they think heterosexual male desire, or its open expression, is inherently dangerous or unacceptable. This is the straight up pathologization thesis. Since this post is already very long and this point is something I’m addressing in the whole of this series, I’ll just say that I’m skeptical of the evidence that this is a widespread or serious problem.”

I think it’s bad style to look at specific instances and then not even discuss the main point due to being “sceptical” about its premise. Plus, as I said before, I think the history of humanity is pretty good evidence for the pathologization thesis, including patriarchy and its adverse consequences for women. Saying that the problem doesn’t exist or isn’t serious, not even in its consequences, implies to me that he’s not as analytically rigorous as his style of writing alleges, but rather that he’s mostly interested in jusitfications for not taking the issue seriously.